Historical Beers George Washington's Small Beer

[stonecutter2]

I plan on doing another batch of this beer shortly, this time with either Cluster hops or East Kent Goldings. Heck I might try one batch of each.

I will be doing the 3 hour boil again, not the 1 hour boil. I can't explain how good that 3 hour batch was after a few months of bottle conditioning. It was a really easy drinking, enjoyable beer! The 1 hour batch never matured like the 3 hour batch, so there IS something to doing a long boil like that.

I do intend on letting this bulk age in secondary for a couple of months, though, which deviates from Gen. Washington's recipe to bottle shortly after fermentation. I want to let it stay in the fermenter longer because there was way too much trub in the bottom of my bottles for my liking. I also think something regarding the 3 hour boil + time allowed the beer to mature into something very tasty, and that will happen whether in individual bottles or in a secondary.

 

[Thunder_Chicken]

I will be doing the 3 hour boil again, not the 1 hour boil. I can't explain how good that 3 hour batch was after a few months of bottle conditioning. It was a really easy drinking, enjoyable beer! The 1 hour batch never matured like the 3 hour batch, so there IS something to doing a long boil like that.

This is really useful information. I wonder if there is some thermal breakdown of starches going on in that long boil.

I really need to give this another go as my first recipe was way off. I'll update the original recipe post with your notes as you have put a lot more effort into developing this recipe.

 

[Kirkwooder]

Ok, now I'm curious. do either of you guy's think this beer would be better if it were carbed?

 

[stonecutter2]

Ok, now I'm curious. do either of you guy's think this beer would be better if it were carbed?

I still have 1 bottle from my 1 hour boil batch that has a NB Fizz Drop in it, actually. I'm going to crack that and see what it's like.

So here's the thing I thought about, though. If given enough time to have the trub settle out, then yeah I think the 3 hour boil version would be pretty good carbed up. It became a mellow, drinkable brew with great subtle flavors.

The problem with carbing it, that I see, is that the trub likes to form a sort of gelatinous blob in the bottom of the bottle, and if you carb this beer then that stuff's going to get all mixed up into the beer when you pop the top. That's what happened with my last bottle that had a Fizz Drop in it.

Washington says to "bottle it that day week it was brewed" and I assume he mistakenly wrote day when he meant week. I find no reference to a "day week" so it's not some old colonial term as best I can figure.

I honestly don't know if the recipe hints at carbonation, because Washington says to bottle it so early...my fermentation was never complete until well after a week in the fermenter (was actually more like 2 weeks). At 7 days in primary, mine was still bubbling - so it's quite possible that some light carbonation would result from bottling so early.

I just think the trub thing is weird. And with bubbles it might get gross.

My plan for my next batch is:

Do a protein rest - 20 minutes at 110F. Washington doesn't say to do it, and I have no idea if it will do anything with wheat bran, but I want to see if it helps with the trub blobs in the bottle.

3 hour boil

Leave in primary for 1-2 months (unless obvious that the blob of trub has now been resolved).

Carbonate 1/2 of the bottles, leave other 1/2 still. Compare the two after a couple of weeks.

I'm still hoping to get a "great!" version of this ready for the 4th of July this year.

 

[Thunder_Chicken]

I stumbled across this reference that has some interesting text:


The London and Country Brewer, by Anonymous (1736)

In CHAP. IX. The Country or private way of Brewing:

I will suppose a private Family to Brew five Bushels of Malt, whose Copper holds brim-full thirty six Gallons or a Barrel: On this water we put half a Peck of Bran or Malt when it is something hot, which will much forward it by keep in the Steams or Spirit of the water, and when it begins to Boil, if the water is foul, skim off the Bran or Malt and give it the Hogs

These are the only two uses of the word "bran" in the entire document, and there is no clear distinction made between Bran and Malt, even in the section describing grain processing.

Also, if we take bran in the modern sense, nothing in Washington's recipe specifically refers to wheat bran. Other cereal crops produce bran, including corn. Washington grew both wheat and corn at Mt. Vernon. Washington also got into distilling whiskey, using rye, corn and small amounts of malted barley.

I am wondering a couple things now:

1. Did "bran" possibly indicate "malt"? Malted grains were expensive, but perhaps the idea of this beer was to stretch a relatively small amount of expensive malt using molasses? Also, maybe it was possible to kiln small amounts of sprouted grains locally, without need to purchase from a maltster?
   
2. If "bran" in Washington's recipe meant bran in the original sense, the bran of a cereal grain, was the grain necessarily wheat? Could it have been corn? Degerminated corn grits, bran, or meal (all the same, just varying the milling) is commonly used in brewing even today, and corn meal was a part of the grist of Washington's whiskey recipe. This might produce a much nicer, milder beer as boiling corn grits doesn't involve boiling a tannin-laden husk. Wheat bran was actually used as a source of tannins to tan leather.

I think corn grits might be an interesting experiment in place of wheat bran. Corn grit and molasses beer?

 

[Kirkwooder]

I can't imagine that malted barley would have been difficult to come by in 1776 Philly. By that time there were dozens of breweries in Philly, and surely there must have been malt houses as well. Even if the malt was not available comercially, Washington had a huge estate with his own brewhouse. I would imagine that his "staff" would most likely raise the needed barley, and malt it in house. After all, malt is a key ingredient in Rye wiskey. If he was distilling wiskey he must have had access to malted barley.

Furthermore, if he was refering to barley as "bran", the barley would have to have been crushed/milled to be able to go through the sifter.

Not any different than we do today, inculding the addition of inexpensive adjuncs, in the form of mollasses. lol Just like BMC!

 

[Kirkwooder]

Well, I have a freezer full of Willamette and Fuggles from the garden, a packet of notty, and an empty 1 gallon fermenter. I'll have to see if I can find the bran and golden suryp, and maybe give this a try tomarrow! I'll keep you posted!

 

[Weezy]

Distilleries.horked up most of the barley in colonial days, which was a much, much, much bigger industry until the German immigration. There was a lot of molasses, corn and wheat used in beer then.

 

[Kirkwooder]

Ok, my boil is under way. I have started with 2.5 gallons fresh well water, 1-10oz. package of wheat bran, and 1/2 oz. of my home grown, whole leaf Willamette hops.

I first started with 1/4 oz. of the willamette's, but I could not get even the slightest bit of hop aroma from the boil. So, I added an additional 1/4 oz, and now have a precievable hop aroma when standing right over the boiling kettle. It is not very pronounced, but still there!

I plan on adding in another 1/4 - 1/2 oz. hopps at flame out.

I believe that I will bring the gravity of this wort up to around 1.035- 1.040. I plan on testing the gravity of the wort and then adding a light brown sugar suryp to achieve a S.G. in the 1.035 area. I am shooting for a beer with a 4.5% abv when finished.

I believe that this is as close to the "mollassas" George had as I can find localy, and I've used it several times to boost the frementables in some of my ciders with good results. I'll add a tablespoon of the mollasses that we have today just for some flavor/authentisity.

Any thoughts?

 

[Kirkwooder]

My wort came out at 1.010 S.G.. It tasted bitter, but not bad. 1/2 oz. of Willamette might be a little strong. :cross: I added my sugar and ended up with 1.036, so I'm expecting it to be around 4%, which should be acceptable for a "small beer". I strained the wort through a muslin hop bag into my mister beer LBK. It looks very cloudy as others have said.
I pitched about half a packet of Notty and put the LBK in the closet to frement.

I decided to use the LBK because it is more in line with the open casks that Geo would have been using at Mt. Vernon.

I've also been giving some thought to bottling this on day 8. That is if the gravity is close to where it should be so that I don't get bottle bombs. Is there any way to calculate that #? I wondered if that is what would have been done in the day, and if done that way, would it be somewhat carbed?

 

[Thunder_Chicken]

The ferment is usually good and done by day 8, no real residual sugar to prime and carbonate. And back in the day these would have been bottled and corked like wine. In-bottle fermentation was probably not attempted as the fermentation process was poorly understood and bottle strength was less consistent. Bottle bombs were a concern back then. The beer back then was probably as flat as tap water.

It only takes a few points of gravity to carbonate. As 1) the resolution of your hydrometer is probably +/- 1 point or more, and 2) you really don't know when the yeast will finish attenuating, it is extremely easy to make bottle bombs by trying this. Far safer to ferment to dryness and then put a controlled amount of sugar.

It's *really* easy to overdo hops. Hopefully with Willamette it will be OK. When you drink this, have it a cellar temp. If you serve it ice cold all you will taste will be bitterness. It needs a little warmth so the bran and molasses can come to play.

 

[Kirkwooder]

The smell really threw me at first. It smelled like cooking grits or oatmeal, and nothing like any other beer I have ever made. I added more bittering hop because I couldn't smell even the slightest hop aroma. I should have just left it alone, although I think I might have been left wanting a bit more bittering if I had. I'll let you know.

This has been a very fun brew to attempt. I'm sure it will be drinkable, and may even be enjoyable. And with just a couple bucks into making it, and ending up with just a gallon when done, I can see tweeking it to taste!

 

[brandonman]

I stumbled across this reference that has some interesting text:


The London and Country Brewer, by Anonymous (1736)

In CHAP. IX. The Country or private way of Brewing:



These are the only two uses of the word "bran" in the entire document, and there is no clear distinction made between Bran and Malt, even in the section describing grain processing.

Also, if we take bran in the modern sense, nothing in Washington's recipe specifically refers to wheat bran. Other cereal crops produce bran, including corn. Washington grew both wheat and corn at Mt. Vernon. Washington also got into distilling whiskey, using rye, corn and small amounts of malted barley.

I am wondering a couple things now:

1. Did "bran" possibly indicate "malt"? Malted grains were expensive, but perhaps the idea of this beer was to stretch a relatively small amount of expensive malt using molasses? Also, maybe it was possible to kiln small amounts of sprouted grains locally, without need to purchase from a maltster?
   
2. If "bran" in Washington's recipe meant bran in the original sense, the bran of a cereal grain, was the grain necessarily wheat? Could it have been corn? Degerminated corn grits, bran, or meal (all the same, just varying the milling) is commonly used in brewing even today, and corn meal was a part of the grist of Washington's whiskey recipe. This might produce a much nicer, milder beer as boiling corn grits doesn't involve boiling a tannin-laden husk. Wheat bran was actually used as a source of tannins to tan leather.

I think corn grits might be an interesting experiment in place of wheat bran. Corn grit and molasses beer?

I actually just so happened to have that document open in another tab. The preceding sentence says an assumption is made that the regular family does indeed have malt on hand, but at the same time, I feel as though there is a differentiation made with the specific choice of the word "OR" between bran and malt. Considering the author had JUST been talking about the availability of malt, it is safe to assume that the terminology was well accepted, and if the intention was to rectify regional dialects using "Bran" in reference to "Malt", it would have happened a whole lot earlier in the document, rather than in the very middle, when readers accustomed to "Bran" would have been thoroughly confused for chapters.

In short, I feel it's safe to assume Bran doesn't reference malt if we're looking to see if this was a common word choice Washington may have made. Also, the fact that this is one of the few examples where this is ambiguous (that I know of?), indicates that Washington would have likely specified *malt*, as other texts of the era do. But, then again, I'm a total noob and not a historian, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Thunder_Chicken]

I actually just so happened to have that document open in another tab. The preceding sentence says an assumption is made that the regular family does indeed have malt on hand, but at the same time, I feel as though there is a differentiation made with the specific choice of the word "OR" between bran and malt. Considering the author had JUST been talking about the availability of malt, it is safe to assume that the terminology was well accepted, and if the intention was to rectify regional dialects using "Bran" in reference to "Malt", it would have happened a whole lot earlier in the document, rather than in the very middle, when readers accustomed to "Bran" would have been thoroughly confused for chapters.

In short, I feel it's safe to assume Bran doesn't reference malt if we're looking to see if this was a common word choice Washington may have made. Also, the fact that this is one of the few examples where this is ambiguous (that I know of?), indicates that Washington would have likely specified *malt*, as other texts of the era do. But, then again, I'm a total noob and not a historian, so take it with a grain of salt.

Yeah, I am leaning the same way, that "bran" does not equal "malt". They didn't seem too choosy about there grist bill back in the day.

I am still wondering about corn bran vs. wheat bran. He had access to both.

 

[brandonman]

Yeah, I am leaning the same way, that "bran" does not equal "malt". They didn't seem too choosy about there grist bill back in the day.

I am still wondering about corn bran vs. wheat bran. He had access to both.

As a total newbie who started off playing with mead and is doing beer from kits, the only yeast I have on hand is Fleischman's and Lalvin V11116, otherwise I would try to get a jump on this and do a side by side this week

Probably also doesn't help that my only proper airlock is tied up with a 5 gallon batch I just started at the moment so I would be using the ol' balloon and pinprick trick.

Also, would you do anything different to scale down to a half gallon besides a halving of everything? I have been buying my milk in half gallon glass jugs lately specifically for mead and various fermentation experiments, so these would be most convenient.

 

[Kirkwooder]

The thing that impressed me most about brewing this beer with wheat bran, was the very minor amount of measurable sugars imparted to the wort by the bran. After the 3 hour boil my pre "molassas" wort only had a S.G. of 1.010. It leaves me wondering if any of the gravity supplied by the bran will ferment, or if it is mostly unfermentable sugars.

 

[stonecutter2]

Yeah, I am leaning the same way, that "bran" does not equal "malt". They didn't seem too choosy about there grist bill back in the day.

I am still wondering about corn bran vs. wheat bran. He had access to both.

I'm probably going to make an oat bran version, just for fun.

And yeah, corn bran would be interesting to try, too!

I also wondered what kind of bran he was really referring to. Because when I went to the store and found bulk grains, there were varieties of bran and I thought "Why wheat bran, maybe it was another bran?"

 

[stonecutter2]

As a total newbie who started off playing with mead and is doing beer from kits, the only yeast I have on hand is Fleischman's and Lalvin V11116, otherwise I would try to get a jump on this and do a side by side this week

Probably also doesn't help that my only proper airlock is tied up with a 5 gallon batch I just started at the moment so I would be using the ol' balloon and pinprick trick.

Also, would you do anything different to scale down to a half gallon besides a halving of everything? I have been buying my milk in half gallon glass jugs lately specifically for mead and various fermentation experiments, so these would be most convenient.

Actually, Fleischman's is probably closer to whatever was used back then, maybe just some bread yeast they had made starters with. I wouldn't hesitate to try Fleischman's.

Also there's nothing wrong with the balloon and pinprick trick, from GW's recipe is sounds like he open ferments it at a point.

For 1/2 half gallon, yeah I'd just split the ingredients in half. 3.5g of hops instead of 1/4oz.

 

[stonecutter2]

I made another batch yesterday.

This time, I did a protein rest of 15min at 115F. I put the wheat bran in 3 cups of water. Kind of a mini mash. Then while resting, I heated the rest of my water up. It hit about 120 by the time my rest was done, so I just dumped the bran and mash water into the kettle.

My OG was 1.042 this time. I suspect this was because I didn't manage the burner heat well enough, and was probably about 1/2 quart short of 1 gallon. No biggie, a little more ABV is just fine by me

With the protein rest, I'm mainly trying to cut down on the amount of fluffy trub that collects with this beer (the gel like stuff on the bottom of the bottle). This 1 gallon batch will see an extended secondary rest (actually just sitting in the primary), for about 1 month.

 

[brandonman]

Actually, Fleischman's is probably closer to whatever was used back then, maybe just some bread yeast they had made starters with. I wouldn't hesitate to try Fleischman's.

Also there's nothing wrong with the balloon and pinprick trick, from GW's recipe is sounds like he open ferments it at a point.

For 1/2 half gallon, yeah I'd just split the ingredients in half. 3.5g of hops instead of 1/4oz.

I might actually be able to make a LHBS run Thursday (I wasn't even thinking, I need to get hops!) Regardless, I think I may do my run (I guess this weekend) as a Fleischman's versus Ale Yeast side by side. Who knows, maybe the Fleischman's could do something weird that the breadier yeasts of the time did to alter the flavor balance a lot in the positive direction and make it more like what the General was drinking! :rockin:

 

[stonecutter2]

The thing that impressed me most about brewing this beer with wheat bran, was the very minor amount of measurable sugars imparted to the wort by the bran. After the 3 hour boil my pre "molassas" wort only had a S.G. of 1.010. It leaves me wondering if any of the gravity supplied by the bran will ferment, or if it is mostly unfermentable sugars.

That is interesting. I've never checked my "pre molasses" wort gravity, actually. If you ended up with 1.010, i'll buy that. Both of my attempts at this ended at 1.003, which tells me that in fact some of the small amount of sugars from the wheat bran did ferment out.

 

[stonecutter2]

I cracked my carbonated bottle of the "1 hour boil" batch. I used one Fizz Drop from Northern Brewer. It poured with about 1/2"-3/4" of a creamy, thick head. Head retention is excellent. It has settled to 1/4" and is staying there. It looks great. There's nice lacing on the glass, even.

There was some trub disturbance with the carbonation, nothing extreme, but the beer is still hazy enough where I can barely see it in the glass. Just little bits floating up and down on the bubbles.

It's not as "weird" as I would have thought to have this carbonated. It accentuates the hops flavor a bit more, makes the flavor a little more lively, then you get a wheat flavor on the very backend mixed with sweetness.

I think carbonating this is not an issue, as far as it making it weird. For honesty to the recipe, Washington mentions nothing of carbonating, only bottling it "the day Week it was brewed." Not AFTER a week, just bottle it that week. Since my last brews fermented like 10 days, I think light carbonation (or more?) could have resulted with an early bottling. I may conduct an experiment with this in the future Perhaps it was the colonial American's thrifty way of carbonating easily.

I now plan on carbonating 1/2 of my most recent batch. This really is more what someone expects when given a "beer," and it's quite good.

As an aside, this bottle again confirms that my 1 hour boil hasn't changed much in flavor characteristics. It showcases the Liberty hops quite well, and interestingly. It's a sweet fruity flavor mixed with wheat. I think pairing some APA hops might even turn this into something really unique and complex. Perhaps some Cluster and a modern hop to bring together old and new? Or EKG and some American hop for a clash of England and the US?

I have 2 more bottles of my "3 hour boil" batch left, and I'm interested to see how that develops. I may have to pop one and drop a Fizz Drop in it

 

[Kirkwooder]

The "day week" reference seems to speak to what we now say "week day" to convey. Meaning, I take it to mean that if he brewed on friday then next friday the beer should be ready to bottle. (only a guess)

Any way, I don't think that it would have been out of the relm of possibilty for this beer to have been some what carbed when it was served in the late 1700's. I have found referances to carbing beer as early as the 1830's that sounded as though it was common knowelge/practice. Champange would have been bottled and corked with cages at this time, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the leap from one beverage under pressure to the other. Either way, I will try mine both ways once it is finished fermenting.

I think I would like to try this brew with some other grains as well. I'm not overly convinced that the "bran" refers to wheat, though I can find nothing that would suggest anything but wheat bran. I just can't get over the fact that the bran imparts so little to this wort.

 

[brandonman]

I cracked my carbonated bottle of the "1 hour boil" batch. I used one Fizz Drop from Northern Brewer. It poured with about 1/2"-3/4" of a creamy, thick head. Head retention is excellent. It has settled to 1/4" and is staying there. It looks great. There's nice lacing on the glass, even.

There was some trub disturbance with the carbonation, nothing extreme, but the beer is still hazy enough where I can barely see it in the glass. Just little bits floating up and down on the bubbles.

It's not as "weird" as I would have thought to have this carbonated. It accentuates the hops flavor a bit more, makes the flavor a little more lively, then you get a wheat flavor on the very backend mixed with sweetness.

I think carbonating this is not an issue, as far as it making it weird. For honesty to the recipe, Washington mentions nothing of carbonating, only bottling it "the day Week it was brewed." Not AFTER a week, just bottle it that week. Since my last brews fermented like 10 days, I think light carbonation (or more?) could have resulted with an early bottling. I may conduct an experiment with this in the future Perhaps it was the colonial American's thrifty way of carbonating easily.

I now plan on carbonating 1/2 of my most recent batch. This really is more what someone expects when given a "beer," and it's quite good.

As an aside, this bottle again confirms that my 1 hour boil hasn't changed much in flavor characteristics. It showcases the Liberty hops quite well, and interestingly. It's a sweet fruity flavor mixed with wheat. I think pairing some APA hops might even turn this into something really unique and complex. Perhaps some Cluster and a modern hop to bring together old and new? Or EKG and some American hop for a clash of England and the US?

I have 2 more bottles of my "3 hour boil" batch left, and I'm interested to see how that develops. I may have to pop one and drop a Fizz Drop in it

Good to know. Once I get around to my batch, I'm going to have to try carbonating some.

 

[stonecutter2]

The "day week" reference seems to speak to what we now say "week day" to convey. Meaning, I take it to mean that if he brewed on friday then next friday the beer should be ready to bottle. (only a guess)

Any way, I don't think that it would have been out of the relm of possibilty for this beer to have been some what carbed when it was served in the late 1700's. I have found referances to carbing beer as early as the 1830's that sounded as though it was common knowelge/practice. Champange would have been bottled and corked with cages at this time, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the leap from one beverage under pressure to the other. Either way, I will try mine both ways once it is finished fermenting.

I think I would like to try this brew with some other grains as well. I'm not overly convinced that the "bran" refers to wheat, though I can find nothing that would suggest anything but wheat bran. I just can't get over the fact that the bran imparts so little to this wort.

The bran's main purpose seems to be to provide body to the beer. The minimal conversion isn't too surprising since bran doesn't have much to it.

Without the bran, you're just fermenting sugary hop water

In 1796's "American Cookery" (the first published American cookbook) there is a simple spruce beer recipe that is essentially hop water and spruce essence. It makes specific reference to adding molasses to each bottle, which would carbonate it:

"Take four ounces of hops, let them boil half an hour in one gallon of water, strain the hop water then add sixteen gallons of warm water, two gallons of molasses, eight ounces of essence of spruce, dissolved in one quart of water, put it in a clean cask, then shake it well together, add half a pint of emptins (see below), then let it stand and work one week, if very warm weather less time will do, when it is drawn off to bottle, add one spoonful of molasses to every bottle."

Emptins were a yeast starter with hops in it.

 

[Devilsnight]

This seems like an interesting test batch I'd like to try. I didn't read all 9 pages so forgive me, I'm wondering about lyles golden syrup. A quick search tells me im probly not going to find this in centeral wisconsin. what is it exactly and what could i maybe find locally as a replacement?

 

[DukeWashterbuckle]

In the interest of keeping it more or less historically accurate, it might benefit from using hops that would only be available in the area at the time. To quote Wikipedia:

Hops were imported from France, Holland and Germany and naturally import duty was raised on those; it was not until 1524 that hops were first grown in the southeast of England (Kent) when they were introduced as an agricultural crop by Dutch farmers. Therefore, in the hop industry there were many words which originally were Dutch words, such as oast house, which is derived from the Dutch word eest huis which means "drying house"; scuppet, a large wooden spade used on the hop floor to turn the hops into the hanging pocket or bale, which is derived from the Dutch word schop.[citation needed] Hops were then grown as far north as Aberdeen near breweries for infrastructure convenience. It was another century before hop cultivation began in the present-day United States, in 1629 by English and Dutch farmers.

Please exclude some of the superfluous information in the quote, but it needed to be presented in its full context to make any sense

 

[stonecutter2]

This seems like an interesting test batch I'd like to try. I didn't read all 9 pages so forgive me, I'm wondering about lyles golden syrup. A quick search tells me im probly not going to find this in centeral wisconsin. what is it exactly and what could i maybe find locally as a replacement?

Lyle's Golden Syrup is a sweet syrup or "pale treacle", made from sugar cane or sugar beets. Think of it as a very light molasses.

I think it's possible that corn syrup could be a substitute. There is a slight flavor difference between the two, but I don't know what impact that could have on the final product. It would probably be pretty subtle.

You might be surprised and find this in a specialty store up in WI. Just keep an eye out when you go to grocery stores and stuff.

 

[Devilsnight]

thanks, will have to keep an eye out

 

[stonecutter2]

Well, I've been beyond patient and my small beer is still in primary since I fermented my last batch. It hasn't dramatically cleared, so I'll be bottling it tonight, I think.

I opened one of the last 2 bottles I had from my last 3 hour boil batch - pretty clear, very smooth, and most suprising...lightly carbonated! Fine little bubbles rose in the glass while drinking it. I think it has about 4-5 months of conditioning on it. Not sure how it ended up carbonating, the others were totally still. Very interesting stuff.

I'm going to bottle these up and save them for the 4th of July. I have some American flag bottlecaps that will be perfect