Historical Beers George Washington's Small Beer

[stonecutter2]

Excellent!

Yeah, the bran does seem to pull in a lot of water. How long was your boil? I got a lot of sticky "glue rafts" towards the end of the 1-hr. boil that I tried to skim out, but then again I used the equivalent of 2 lbs of bran per gallon vs. your 0.5 lbs.

I'm really interested to see how yours comes out. I think there is excellent potential for this to be pretty tasty beer.

My boil was 60 minutes. I did have a sticky glue-like raft in the center of the kettle. I left it alone instead of skimming it off. I was actually interested to see if it would start to break down at all at some point. I mixed it up occasionally but it reformed within minutes. Toward the end of the 60 minutes it was starting to fold its edges under itself, but not really breakdown. It seemed to get trapped in the strainer and didn't end up in the fermenter.

I agree that this could be an interesting brew! It's cheap and simple. I like that its a part of history. These were like our modern glass of water at meals, and I think it doesn't have to be super complex to be appreciated.

My goal is a refreshing drink with medium body and just a hint of hops and alcohol

 

[-DELETED-MEMBER-]

wow, I love obscure one gallon experiments. I've subscribed to this one. I'm interested to see what you guys come up with. There are a few empty 1 gallon fermenters in my brew room right now, maybe I'll mess about with this one in the next while as well.

Thanks for the inspiration, TC.

 

[stonecutter2]

Was greeted this morning with a very slow bubbling fermenter, and lots of fluffy trub. I think my small beer is almost ready for bottling! Today marks day 8, right on schedule per Washington's "day Week" estimate. Color is a beautiful vibrant opaque golden yellow. Bottling day is scheduled for Sunday!

 

[stonecutter2]

Despite my burning desire to apply modern brewing knowledge/techniques to this and give it rests at various times (for enzymes/better starch breakdown), I do agree with TC's perspective that the bran was simply there for body/mouthfeel and that staying true to the recipe itself is probably the most important thing - this is brewing history, after all!

So, my next attempt won't involve adding dark/blackstrap molasses, or any mash rest periods. I think it's time for the full 3 hour boil time I think it will get us a little closer to what Washington made (or rather, the recipe he wrote down...still not sure this was something he actually ever made).

Also, that starch raft that forms needs to stay in the boil, in my opinion. The conversion is probably a very, very slow process given the lack of a dedicated enzyme rest. That liberated starch source needs to stay in there with the smaller grain bill, I think. Much of what I read regarding starches and breakdown implies that at boiling temp, the breakdown is a slow process.

I think the 3 hour boil will make the beer less viscous as the starches breakdown, too. I'm going to draw samples of the wort at hourly intervals and taste for perceived sweetness. If conversion is occurring, I'd imagine it would become noticeable. We'll find out soon enough, I guess.

Need opinions - should I boil the hops for 3 hours, too? I would consider only adding them for the last hour, however...Washington specifically says to include the hops to your taste in the boil. So I think I will.

Interesting note from my brewing session - when I added my wheat bran, it was at about 165F (I didn't wait for an actual boil). This is because the water had formed lots of little bubbles and I wondered what someone back in 1757 considered "boiling." Anyways, the moment the bran hit the water, a layer of starchy foam instantly developed. Once I got to a rolling boil, this starchy foam nearly boiled over as I threw in the hops - and immediately upon contact with the hops, the foam largely subsided into a foamy raft in the middle of the boil. Boil over averted! Could the hops contribute to this breakdown process (the acidity in them, maybe)? Perhaps so.

 

[Thunder_Chicken]

I am actually very interested in the "yeast" part of the recipe. Odds are that it wasn't anything close to a clean strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, but not completely a wild brew either. They probably perpetuated the yeast from the last good batch and if it went off they tossed it and found another source of yeast. There was some evolutionary pressure that probably developed a mostly clean yeast pitch, but it probably wasn't a monoculture.

I wonder what would happen if you were to expose your wort to wild fermentation, ferment it out, take some trub and pitch that in new wort, and repeat, and repeat, and repeat...? If your beer turned over fast enough, only the quick growing components would really get passed on.

Also, how long would a mass of 33 gallons of beer in a wooden cask take to cool from "blood warm" to "cool"? Long enough to get some nice lacto sourness going maybe? I wonder how Washington's recipe would do with a lacto/Brett/Sacc. pitch.

 

[stonecutter2]

I am actually very interested in the "yeast" part of the recipe. Odds are that it wasn't anything close to a clean strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, but not completely a wild brew either. They probably perpetuated the yeast from the last good batch and if it went off they tossed it and found another source of yeast. There was some evolutionary pressure that probably developed a mostly clean yeast pitch, but it probably wasn't a monoculture.

I wonder what would happen if you were to expose your wort to wild fermentation, ferment it out, take some trub and pitch that in new wort, and repeat, and repeat, and repeat...? If your beer turned over fast enough, only the quick growing components would really get passed on.

Also, how long would a mass of 33 gallons of beer in a wooden cask take to cool from "blood warm" to "cool"? Long enough to get some nice lacto sourness going maybe? I wonder how Washington's recipe would do with a lacto/Brett/Sacc. pitch.

I've actually been reading about a Spruce beer recipe in "American Cookery," the first American cookbook written by a woman in 1796 (actually, the first truly American cookbook detailing new world ingredients and recipes). She mentions "emptins" (yeast starters) and provides a method of preparing them:

Emptins.

Take a handful of hops and about three quarts of water, let it boil about fifteen minutes, then make a thickening as you do for starch, strain the liquor, when cold put a little emptins to work them, they will keep well cork'd in a bottle five or six weeks.

So, basically, she mentions hops (those would keep bacterial contamination down - of course unknown to those at the time except that using hops probably would provide good reliable results), boiling the water, and then keeping them "well cork'd" - so it's quite possible that the methodology was known for maintaining a "good" strain of yeast through several batches. They might not have understood the why, but I think the method could have been widely known. This emptins recipe was of course in 1796, nearly 40 years after George jotted down his small beer recipe...but reading wikipedia's article about baker's yeast seems to indicate that making this type of starter was known for quite some time. I suspect this is the "quart of yeast" Washington was referring to.

I definitely wouldn't rule out the potential of some of these batches getting soured/infected.

Now that we've talked about this, I'm going to go the colonial route and make a starter from my current batch so I can use it in the next

 

[Thunder_Chicken]

Good point. A handful of hops in 3 qts. is pretty decent bittering. Lactobacillus really doesn't tolerate hops all that well; folks that make sours use aged debittered hops and generally keep the IBUs below 5-10.

It still probably was not a monoculture, but probably mostly yeast, mostly Sacc. and maybe some Brett. Since this beer was high turnover, the Brett. probably was generally beat out by the Sacc. yeasts. If you forgot a bottle for a longish time the Brett. might slowly chew down the last few points of gravity after the Sacc. finished up, but beer probably didn't last that long, especially small beer.

I have to keep reminding myself that beer was made before clean rooms and StarSan was invented.

 

[stonecutter2]

I did a 3 hour boil batch yesterday. Around the 2 hour mark, the starch rafts started to break down into a foam again, which was interesting. Then gradually over the 3rd hour, they reformed.

My OG was 1.034 - my hydrometer has a guesstimate marking of approximate % of alcohol, which said 4.5% - about perfect for small beer. We'll see how it finishes and compares to the 1 hour boil batch.

I wasn't sure how much water to start with, so I initially used 2 gallons. After almost one hour, I was down almost 1/2 gallon, so didn't want to end up with too low of a volume after 3 hours (was estimating ending up at 1/2 gallon instead of one gallon, based on evaporating 1/2 gallon per hour). I ended up boiling another 1/2 gallon and added that at the one hour mark. In the end, this meant I ended up with nearly 1/2 gallon of wort extra. So, in my experience, the starting volume of water for a 1 gallon batch using a 3 hour boil should be 2.5 gallons to end up with 4.5% alcohol small beer - and plenty of extra wort for starters for the next batch, hydrometer readings, etc.

It was at the point of getting what I did that I realized the recipe from Washington never explicitly states how much water to start with. So, I guess that's part of the experiment too.

I used my extra wort to rehydrate the 1/2 packet of leftover Nottingham I had, and the yeast seemed very happy to be in it. It got started fast...it looked like volcanic eruptions from the bottom of the mason jar.

Can't wait to do a side-by-side and see what 2 more hours of boiling really achieved.

 

[Thunder_Chicken]

The 3 hr boil interests me. Not sure if there is anything to it, but it would be neat to see if there is any difference in yeast attenuation / FG for that boil. Though since the bran is only ~5-7 ppg, and you're using only 0.5 lbs per gallon, the impact should be minimal. Still, maybe some flavor constituents get modified in some way, or carmelization occurs. It might affect color more than anything.

Very cool experiments. I can't wait to see pictures and tasting notes for the final products! I definitely want to try this again.

 

[stonecutter2]

The 3 hr boil interests me. Not sure if there is anything to it, but it would be neat to see if there is any difference in yeast attenuation / FG for that boil. Though since the bran is only ~5-7 ppg, and you're using only 0.5 lbs per gallon, the impact should be minimal. Still, maybe some flavor constituents get modified in some way, or carmelization occurs. It might affect color more than anything.

Very cool experiments. I can't wait to see pictures and tasting notes for the final products! I definitely want to try this again.

Actually I did forget to mention that the color of the wort in the fermenter is more yellow and slightly greenish for the 3 hour boil batch. The 1 hour boil was more golden. I also see a lot more trub in the 3 hour boil fermenter - like same level in 24 hours as the 10+ day old 1 hour boil that's about fermented out!

 

[Thunder_Chicken]

Hmmm...maybe a longer boil preciptates out more break proteins? Bran also has a lot of oil that might make the brew subject to going rancid. I've read that heat treatments can postpone/eliminate this. Maybe this is what is going on?

Really interesting. Nice job of approaching this systematically.

 

[stonecutter2]

Just checking in on my observations. The 1 hour boil batch is still bubbling ever so slightly - so it has surpassed the "day week" timeframe of Washington's recipe twice over. It was estimated at about 6% abv, though, so that might explain the lengthier fermentation. So, I'm letting it do its thing. I don't want to bottle it while still fermenting, only to end up with weirdly carbonated small beer, or bottle bombs. The trub on the bottom is very fluffy looking.

The trub on the bottom of the 3 hour boil is not fluffy at all so far. At one week's time, it is the thickness of the trub of the 1 hour boil that has been fermenting for 2 weeks (just not fluffy). I'm rather surprised how much has fallen out of suspension in so little time! The color is now nearly identical to the 1 hour boil batch. The fermentation is slowing quite a bit, and at day 4 in the fermenter, I think it will actually wrap up here in the next few days. The bubbles are getting smaller and the krausen is receding.

Based strictly on the progression of fermentation, something different is certainly going on between these two batches. Whatever that "fluff" is, it seems to have been broken down by the 3 hour boil.

 

[Thunder_Chicken]

Based strictly on the progression of fermentation, something different is certainly going on between these two batches. Whatever that "fluff" is, it seems to have been broken down by the 3 hour boil.

Can you post any pictures of the fermenters? I'm really curious. This sounds really interesting.

 

[stonecutter2]

Can you post any pictures of the fermenters? I'm really curious. This sounds really interesting.

Snapped some pics last night, so they're on my phone. I'll post them up tonight when i get home.

The 1 hour boil batch has finally stopped bubbling. So, I intend to bottle tonight. The 3 hour boil batch has slowed to very tiny bubbles, I think it'll be ready for bottling within the week timeframe GW stated.

 

[stonecutter2]

All righty, got the 1 hour boil batch bottled (and for an experiment, I put a fizz drop in 2 bottles just to see how it is!)

Here's the 1 hour boil:

And the 3 hour boil:

See how different the trub is? The 1 hour looks very yellow and fluffy. The 3 hour boil looks like other ales I've brewed.

 

[stonecutter2]

Tasting Notes:

Really had no idea what to expect with this one.

First sip impression - slightly fruity (interesting?), hint of spice, and a little starchy. The fruit taste is almost grape-like. Body is somewhat full. Not a dramatically bitter brew, this is relatively balanced fresh out of the fermenter. Reminds me very much of a hefeweizen but sweeter.

Aroma: wheat and yeast, a hint of hops.

OG = 1.047
FG = 1.003
ABV = 5.78%, not a "small beer" but it has a bit of a punch!

This turned out to be a pretty tasty beer, actually! But not a "small beer." I have a feeling the 3 hour boil might represent the style a little closer.

I am definitely happy with how this turned out. Looking forward to trying it as it develops. Can't wait to see how the carbonated bottles come out either!

 

[Thunder_Chicken]

Sounds really good. It's surprising how that starchy wheat bran brew wants to finish dry. I'm curious to see if your brew clears.

I noticed that hop bittering was not very noticeable when the beer was warm (~ room temperature) but really was noticeable when chilled.

 

[stonecutter2]

Had a chilled bottle tonight, the bittering was more noticeable but still balanced by my 10 minute addition. I'm liking the sweet aspect of this brew so far. I think the Liberty hops work very well in this recipe.

The bottles are clearing slowly, too!

 

[Thunder_Chicken]

The bittering is definitely more noticeable when chilled. The bitterness in my first attempt with Magnum served at refrigerator temperatures almost knocked me down.

Back in the day the beer was probably drunk at a cool cellar temp, not necessarily ice cold. Even if it came out of the ice house it had to get hauled across the yard, etc.. so probably didn't make it to the cup ice cold. The slight bit of warmth brings the sweetness out.

I've been flat out at work and haven't been able to brew, but I am hoping to this weekend. I hope to try a gallon batch of this again in the next few weeks.

 

[stonecutter2]

Bottled the 3 hour batch this morning. It finished at 1.003, yielding 4.07% ABV - perfect!

This brew is very well balanced. Very easy to drink, light wheat flavor with a good hint of hops that is well balanced between bitter and flavor/aroma! Less pronounced "fruity" dryness, and not nearly as starchy.

I would definitely prefer the 3 hour boil to the 1 hour, but 1 hour is "good enough" to taste this interesting piece of history from George Washington!

One nice side effect of the 3 hour boil is less of that fluffy trub in the fermenter and bottle.

 

[stonecutter2]

After a few weeks in the bottle, the 3 hour boil is bitter. Not overly bitter, but bitter. The 1 hour boil version is smooth and easy drinking, with fruity hops flavor lightly up front. The longer boil probably broke down proteins and released more bittering in the hops. I bet upping the aroma/flavor hops would make an interesting brew.

However, the 1 hour boil now seems the better choice. Faster brewing, better hop utilization, roughly equal results.

For the 1 hour boil version, a racking to secondary would help all that trub. Both versions ended up with gelatin like sediment in the bottle, racking would eliminate some of that. Also, none of my bottles have cleared, only the first 1/2 inch or so.

 

[Mindsculptor]

In colonial times, a small beer was made from the mostly spent grains used to make other beers. To extract the remaining sugars, I imagine a three hour boil was necessary.

 

[stonecutter2]

In colonial times, a small beer was made from the mostly spent grains used to make other beers. To extract the remaining sugars, I imagine a three hour boil was necessary.

Yes, that was a form of small beer. But not all small beer was made from second runnings. A small beer was also a beer with low alcohol content. It was used as a means of drinking something cleaner than the water available at the time, which wasn't treated. "Other beers" back then were festival beers or strong ales, more expensive to make and brewed less often. I'm sure the small beers from those spent grains were good, but I think George Washington's recipe reflects a "household small beer" for the purpose of drinking something clean and to serve with food.

The purpose of the 3 hour boil is debatable. Might have been overkill, or the result of experiments that deemed 3 hours being necessary. Or to extract more sugars. In the end, from my experience, all it does is break down some of the trub in the fermenter and increase the bitterness of the brew.

George Washington's recipe states "Take a large sifter full of Bran" and doesn't mention spent grains, or any previous brew that was made. Bran was really cheap and easily attainable in colonial America, as was molasses.

This recipe really represents the spirit of colonial America - practicality, ingenuity, and self reliance. Oh, and not paying taxes on imported ingredients from England

 

[Thunder_Chicken]

That 3 hr boil does have me curious. There must something to it. George is pretty specific about it - not 1 hr, 2 hr, but 3 hr.

Right now I think we know just about as much as George did about WHY a 3 hr boil does what it does. I'm really curious about what sort of starch breakdown occurs. It's actually probably something that would also affect "conventional" barley-based beer brewing.

I also wonder how this ferment would appeal to a small Brettanomyces influence. Brett would probably take the gravity down to 1.000 or lower and would clear and thin the beer. Given time I'd imagine that a stored beer would likely get a Brett. second fermentation of the harder starches.

 

[jcomeau]

I am finding trouble finding the wheat bran and golden syrup. Can something else be used? Maybe just molasses?

 

[Thunder_Chicken]

I am finding trouble finding the wheat bran and golden syrup. Can something else be used? Maybe just molasses?

You can ferment straight molasses, but it isn't to this recipe. The dark molasses found in most stores is very strongly flavored and won't produce a similar beer.

 

[stonecutter2]

I am finding trouble finding the wheat bran and golden syrup. Can something else be used? Maybe just molasses?

Wheat bran can be found in some grocery stores under the Red Mill name, usually in the baking section by flour and sugar. You could also look at any upscale/organic grocery markets (we have one called The Fresh Market that sells it in bulk for $0.99 for 1/2lb).

If you can't find Lyle's golden syrup, corn syrup would be a similar thing. Any grocery store will have corn syrup.

I also found Lyle's golden syrup at The Fresh Market for 2/$7.00 - so I bought 2. You can buy off of Amazon.com or something, too.

If you just use molasses, not including the wheat bran, I don't know what the result would be like. There are other colonial era recipes that only describe water, hops, and molasses, so it can be done no doubt. It just won't taste similar to how the George Washington recipe intends.

Definitely do not use the robust molasses...use original molasses. The lighter, the better, to avoid a funky taste.

 

[WissaBrewGuy]

That 3 hr boil does have me curious. There must something to it. George is pretty specific about it - not 1 hr, 2 hr, but 3 hr.

I am not sure as to the real purpose of the 3hr boil but G. Wash. seems to stick to this time for all of his beers that have been published such as this one:

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f12/george-washingtons-porter-243902/

A 3hr boil may be able to break down some of the proteins better but let's keep in mind that back in his time, they really didn't fully understand the life safety technique that is boiling water. They knew that beer was safer to drink than the city water but they didn't really know why. The 3hrs could be just a habit formed by ensuring the water was really safe to drink. It could be a brewing trick too but I would need to look into it further to know for sure.

 

[stonecutter2]

I am not sure as to the real purpose of the 3hr boil but G. Wash. seems to stick to this time for all of his beers that have been published such as this one:

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f12/george-washingtons-porter-243902/

A 3hr boil may be able to break down some of the proteins better but let's keep in mind that back in his time, they really didn't fully understand the life safety technique that is boiling water. They knew that beer was safer to drink than the city water but they didn't really know why. The 3hrs could be just a habit formed by ensuring the water was really safe to drink. It could be a brewing trick too but I would need to look into it further to know for sure.

That link to his porter recipe is the same recipe being discussed here I guess they figured it was a porter because they used molasses in the modern sense of the term, rather than the first runnings of molasses more commonly used in Washington's time (which is closer to corn syrup or golden syrup these days).

So, I poured a glass of my 3 hour batch the other day. WOW. It was good. No longer overly bitter, it had mellowed into something pretty tasty! Really easy drinking. It had also cleared more, so it looked a bit less like pineapple juice and more like a hefeweizen.

My 1 hour batch still presents a very drinkable, pleasant beer that's distinctly "different" than something you'd drink today, showcasing the hop bitterness/flavor/aroma of the Liberty hops I used (which is kind of a citrusy grapefruit to me). A couple guys who tried it over the holidays declared it "different, but definitely good."

The characteristics of my 1 hour boil batch have not changed, and I was really surprised at how the 3 hour boil had matured.

Also, the bottles all have a sort of gelatinous settled material in them, which has now started to break down into particles. If some end up in the glass, they settle to the bottom very quickly between sips.

I think letting this small beer bulk age could yield something very good. That is, if you're doing a 3 hour boil. With the 1 hour boil, I think this beer is as good fresh as it is aged.

 

[WissaBrewGuy]

That link to his porter recipe is the same recipe being discussed here I guess they figured it was a porter because they used molasses in the modern sense of the term, rather than the first runnings of molasses more commonly used in Washington's time (which is closer to corn syrup or golden syrup these days).

So it is! My bad. I'm glad your brew came out tasty! 3hrs it is!