How much is too much Amber Malt for porter?

[wildturkey]

What do you think of this recipe I found in Terry Foster's Stout and Porter book:

5 gallons
3.75lbs 2 row
3.75lbs brown malt
3.75lbs amber malt
1.5oz EKG @ 90min
Wyeast 1098

Seems heavy on the Amber Malt. Does anyone have experience adding this quantity?

Cheers!

 

[dmtaylor]

Looks tasty. Attenuation might be lower than a regular beer, but it looks like a good, tasty, traditional recipe.

 

[jdauria]

Had to check my recipes because I have made a Terry Foster porter in the past, but it was a different one. Looks like the guys in this UK homebrew forum think the recipe you are asking about would not be good...Terry Foster Porter

Recipe of his I made was his 1774 Porter that was featured in BYO like 10 years ago.

1.080 OG
70.8% Two Row
12.6% Brown Malt
11.5% Amber Malt
5.1% Black Malt
40 IBUs Columbus at 60
Wyeast 1098 British Ale

The beer was very tasty and did very well in comps I entered it into as both a pre-prohibition porter and as an English porter.

 

[wildturkey]

Had to check my recipes because I have made a Terry Foster porter in the past, but it was a different one. Looks like the guys in this UK homebrew forum think the recipe you are asking about would not be good...Terry Foster Porter

Recipe of his I made was his 1774 Porter that was featured in BYO like 10 years ago.

1.080 OG
70.8% Two Row
12.6% Brown Malt
11.5% Amber Malt
5.1% Black Malt
40 IBUs Columbus at 60
Wyeast 1098 British Ale

The beer was very tasty and did very well in comps I entered it into as both a pre-prohibition porter and as an English porter.

Super helpful! I will avoid that ratio of Amber Malt. Thank you for connecting the external thread and our fellow brewers across the pond.

Cool to see we're all talking beer - would be interesting to cross reference posts here with the UK forum for validation etc. Luckily you had this link teed up!

Your recipe looks great, I'll give it a try.

How did you end up adding Black Malt? What were you looking to add? at 5% i'm assuming more than srm points.

 

[Drinking Sensibly]

What do you think of this recipe I found in Terry Foster's Stout and Porter book:

5 gallons
3.75lbs 2 row
3.75lbs brown malt
3.75lbs amber malt
1.5oz EKG @ 90min
Wyeast 1098

Seems heavy on the Amber Malt. Does anyone have experience adding this quantity?

Cheers!

Aside from the other replies, there are several maltsters making Amber malt and they're all significantly different. Take a look at Baird's, Crisp, Muntons amber malts to see what I mean. Which one would you use?

For what it's worth, Crisp's offering might work at that amount.

Amber malt as used in the 18th century was a different product to those available now.
https://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2009/09/mid-18th-century-malting.html

 

[Bramling Cross]

I think the world of Terry Foster! In fact, the removal of his column was a key driver in my decision to let my BYO subscription lapse.

Nevertheless, I haven't had much luck with his amber malt heavy recipes. I thought that the recipe that you list was pretty rough. As Drink Sensibly notes, depending upon the maltster, amber malt can be anything between Munich malt and Biscuit malt. Worse, few retailers actually denote the maltster, they just sell "amber malt." I typically like to cap Amber Malt at about 10%.

I've taken to using Briess' Ashbourne Mild malt in place of amber malt in Foster's recipes, and it works nicely in your suggested recipe. Is it exactly the same as UK amber malt? Certainly, no. However, you can be certain that your efforts will yield an enjoyable batch.

 

[dmtaylor]

I've taken to using Briess' Ashbourne Mild malt in place of amber malt in Foster's recipes, and it works nicely in your suggested recipe. Is it exactly the same as UK amber malt? Certainly, no. However, you can be certain that your efforts will yield an enjoyable batch.

My homebrew club recently brewed 13 different SMASH beers with Briess Ashburn Mild, for which we mashed together a few sacks on a commercial system and did a wort share and split it up that way. My/our thoughts: It's nothing special. A deep gold or very light orange color, slightly hazy, very slight tang. I might use it as something in between a standard 2-row brewers malt and a Vienna malt, it fits between those.

Amber malt, on the other hand, is a different beast entirely in my experience, far more toasty in character. No toast to be found in Ashburn in my experience. Ashburn is relatively bland and plain-jane. I think even standard brewer's malt has more character.

Maybe we just didn't mash it properly.

 

[jdauria]

Super helpful! I will avoid that ratio of Amber Malt. Thank you for connecting the external thread and our fellow brewers across the pond.

Cool to see we're all talking beer - would be interesting to cross reference posts here with the UK forum for validation etc. Luckily you had this link teed up!

Your recipe looks great, I'll give it a try.

How did you end up adding Black Malt? What were you looking to add? at 5% i'm assuming more than srm points.

The Black Malt was mostly for color, but it also added a depth of roastiness to the beer also, since the brown malt also supplies a light roasted flavor. Black malt, or black patent, has a pretty intense roast flavor, so even at 5%, it can really up the roast intensity. I know some people like to add roasted malts at end of the mash during mash out to get more color and less roast flavor, and I do that sometimes with Carafa in my dark lagers where you only want a hint of roast, but for a porter, I mashed it fully with the other grains.

 

[wildturkey]

Aside from the other replies, there are several maltsters making Amber malt and they're all significantly different. Take a look at Baird's, Crisp, Muntons amber malts to see what I mean. Which one would you use?

For what it's worth, Crisp's offering might work at that amount.

Amber malt as used in the 18th century was a different product to those available now.
https://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2009/09/mid-18th-century-malting.html

Very good point. This is definitely where it gets muddy. The maltsters and resulting malts you mention have distinct differences.

If I recall correctly, Terry Foster mentions Crisp while describing recipe formulation.

 

[Bramling Cross]

My homebrew club recently brewed 13 different SMASH beers with Briess Ashburn Mild, for which we mashed together a few sacks on a commercial system and did a wort share and split it up that way. My/our thoughts: It's nothing special. A deep gold or very light orange color, slightly hazy, very slight tang. I might use it as something in between a standard 2-row brewers malt and a Vienna malt, it fits between those.

Amber malt, on the other hand, is a different beast entirely in my experience, far more toasty in character. No toast to be found in Ashburn in my experience. Ashburn is relatively bland and plain-jane. I think even standard brewer's malt has more character.

Maybe we just didn't mash it properly.

I agree that Ashburne isn't the wildest base malt the world has ever known. When I first got my hands on it I was hoping it was going to be a silver bullet solution for my milds and it was a bit of a let down. For some reason, down among the cobwebs in my brain's basement is a notion that Briess originally made it as a Vienna malt for Devil's Backbone? Something like that, I think.

I also agree about the toast thing. That's why I think about Amber as being the UK leg of the Biscuit and Victory toasty malt family. Maybe the relationship between Munich and Dark Munich is a better way of explaining it? I use Dark Munich to amplify Munich's characteristics, but I'd never want to replace, say, 4lbs of Munich with 4lbs of Dark Munich. That wouldn't be terribly pleasant. Likewise, I've found that the generic Amber malt sold by my local shops is best used to amplify UK/UK-style base malts rather than as replacements for them. In my experience, Amber malt doesn't get you a more intensely UK-ey flavor, it just tastes like too much character malt.

 

[Peebee]

Amber malt as used in the 18th century was a different product to those available now.

Too right!

In fact, there would have been no malt recognizable as "modern" malts back then. No black malt (wasn't "invented" until 1817). No "brown malt" as we know it; there may have been something called "brown malt" but it was the base malt, i.e. diastatic. Any attempt to make anything as dark as modern-day brown malt would spontaneously combust!

The clever guys could make paler "amber malts", even "pale malt" (if they had the time, but the most popular beer was Porter, so why bother?). Even as long ago as 1650 they were making "light" coloured malt in Derby using coke (from sea coal). Early in the 18th C. nearby Burton (with their new canal) took over and started exporting "Burton Ale", one of the lightest coloured ales available. They were making Ale then, though it was probably being hopped by then like the increasingly popular "beer".

That Terry Foster recipe looks like it was taken from a historic recipe as it has a common 1:1:1 malt mix (late 18th, very early 19th C.?). But they weren't modern malts, or anything like modern malts.

 

[Peebee]

... Amber malt as used in the 18th century was a different product to those available now.

Only as a matter of interest (my interest that is!): Is this link an improvement on @Drinking Sensibly's? It's "Reading mode" with no flippin' adverts and cwap, but I don't know if it's just a MS Edge thing? You'll need to cut and paste the link as "insert link" won't support "read//:".
read://https_barclayperkins.blogspot.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbarclayperkins.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F09%2Fmid-18th-century-malting.html

 

[Drinking Sensibly]

Too right!

In fact, there would have been no malt recognizable as "modern" malts back then. No black malt (wasn't "invented" until 1817). No "brown malt" as we know it; there may have been something called "brown malt" but it was the base malt, i.e. diastatic. Any attempt to make anything as dark as modern-day brown malt would spontaneously combust!

The clever guys could make paler "amber malts", even "pale malt" (if they had the time, but the most popular beer was Porter, so why bother?). Even as long ago as 1650 they were making "light" coloured malt in Derby using coke (from sea coal). Early in the 18th C. nearby Burton (with their new canal) took over and started exporting "Burton Ale", one of the lightest coloured ales available. They were making Ale then, though it was probably being hopped by then like the increasingly popular "beer".

That Terry Foster recipe looks like it was taken from a historic recipe as it has a common 1:1:1 malt mix (late 18th, very early 19th C.?). But they weren't modern malts, or anything like modern malts.

I thought it was an historic recipe. Hence my out-of-context comment about modern malt difference.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

What do you think of this recipe I found in Terry Foster's Stout and Porter book:

5 gallons
3.75lbs 2 row
3.75lbs brown malt
3.75lbs amber malt
1.5oz EKG @ 90min
Wyeast 1098

Seems heavy on the Amber Malt. Does anyone have experience adding this quantity?

I think it depends on what you're trying to achieve - and I'd be looking at the brown as much as the amber. 33% is a lot of almost any modern brown malt.

Fuller's is pretty much the benchmark for a modern London porter and they're using 9-10% brown malt and no amber. So there's that.

As always, first decide the target, then you know how you measure up to it.

But yeah, modern amber and brown malts are so different to historical ones that it's hard to really compare.

 

[kevin58]

In Ron Pattinson's book, The Homebrewers Guide To Vintage Beer he lists 16 Porters ranging from the years of 1804 to 1940. The least Amber Malt in any of these is 2.83% and the most is 34.48%.

 

[Peebee]

In Ron Pattinson's book, The Homebrewers Guide To Vintage Beer he lists 16 Porters ranging from the years of 1804 to 1940. The least Amber Malt in any of these is 2.83% and the most is 34.48%.

From mid-19th C. onwards: For Brown Malt I use a "rough'n'ready" approach: <10% modern rotating kiln malt, >25% open/direct-fire kilned malt. 10-25%, who-knows? i.e. use your "anything goes" approach. Amber Malt would be more difficult. If Ron P. isn't saying, it's because he hasn't got the evidence, and being a historian means having some backup if there is a possibility of talking BS.

And things move on ... I've retired my "Vintage Beer" book because there are often updated recipes on Ron's Website (if he gets the chance, he'll beat me for saying that!). But I'll still use the "Vintage Beer" book to select beers to then go look up on his website (beating averted?).

At the end of the day, you go with what you want. If it makes you feel like you've a historic recipe ... it is! Just don't attempt to pass it off too widely as "historical" or someone will trip you up.

 

[kevin58]

From mid-19th C. onwards: For Brown Malt I use a "rough'n'ready" approach: <10% modern rotating kiln malt, >25% open/direct-fire kilned malt. 10-25%, who-knows? i.e. use your "anything goes" approach. Amber Malt would be more difficult. If Ron P. isn't saying, it's because he hasn't got the evidence, and being a historian means having some backup if there is a possibility of talking BS.

And things move on ... I've retired my "Vintage Beer" book because there are often updated recipes on Ron's Website (if he gets the chance, he'll beat me for saying that!). But I'll still use the "Vintage Beer" book to select beers to then go look up on his website (beating averted?).

At the end of the day, you go with what you want. If it makes you feel like you've a historic recipe ... it is! Just don't attempt to pass it off too widely as "historical" or someone will trip you up.

I used that book because it has a dozen or more recipes for each style all in one place. My point wasn't the source of the information but the wide range of Amber Malt recorded. And then it pretty much vanished in favor of a little Black Malt for color.

 

[Drinking Sensibly]

I used that book because it has a dozen or more recipes for each style all in one place. My point wasn't the source of the information but the wide range of Amber Malt recorded. And then it pretty much vanished in favor of a little Black Malt for color.

Economics. After the invention of the hydrometer they realised they got better value for money from pale malt over diastatic brown/amber malt, even though it was more expensive. It was better to use a lot of pale and a little black for more or less the same outcome.

 

[Peebee]

Economics. After the invention of the hydrometer they realised they got better value for money from pale malt over diastatic brown/amber malt, even though it was more expensive. It was better to use a lot of pale and a little black for more or less the same outcome.

Grrr.

You must have said that to wind me up! It one of my favourite grizzling subjects. Brewers most certainly could take the gravity before "hydrometers", but it was a PITA so often didn't bother. The scales on a hydrometer are proof ... "Specific Gravity" ... it's not a "hydrometer" thing, it's from what went before. And "calibration temperature" ... now that is a "hydrometer" thing, it didn't need a "thermometer" for "temperature compensation" before hydrometers ("Specific Gravity" is effectively the "temperature compensation").

Okay! I'm unwound now, I'll go get a beer.


Oh, I have other "favourite grizzling subjects" ... ask me what a baby rabbit is called ... (stand back, I bite).

 

[Drinking Sensibly]

See this book. It was him what done it.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hvhAAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=John+Richardson,+Saccharometer+and+the+Pounds-Per-Barrel+Extract&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=John Richardson, Saccharometer and the Pounds-Per-Barrel Extract&f=false

Standing on the shoulders of giants etc, etc

Isn't a baby rabbit called Thumper?

 

[Rish]

what a baby rabbit is called

Tender and tasty!
(Kit)

 

[Peebee]

Tender and tasty!
(Kit)

Did you slip that "(kit)" in on purpose? Anyway, you're too far away to bite. The question was what's wrong, should be "what's an adult rabbit called". But we've all forgotten that (in only the last 70 years too), and it winds me up no end.

See this book. It was him what done it. ...

It's going to take me a month of Sundays to read that attachment. I really haven't got the hang of those long-ses that look like fs. Thanks, that might help me come to terms with why we think hydrometers are so (exclusively) great. I have a vision defect that makes it very difficult to read hydrometers. So, I use pyknometers instead, based on much older Archimedean principals and these days of vastly superior weighing instruments, for the price, than Archimedes had are loads more accurate than hydrometers too.

But ... you live much closer than @Rish, so I'll find you to bite instead.



Specific Gravity
Take two identical barrels (impossible ... use the same barrel and fill it twice). Fill one with the beer/wort, fill the other with clean water. Weigh them. Delete the dry weight of the barrels from the total weights (so you have the weights of the liquids). Divide result for beer with result for water. Done! No hydrometer!

If you're careful to ensure the temperature of both liquids are the same, any difference due to temperature cancels out. No thermometer!

Fill both barrels with water. Both weigh the same! The "same" divided by the "same" equals ... One!

 

[Peebee]

I used that book because ...

Apologies, I was supporting your post, but I guess it does come across as criticising?

2.83% Amber Malt, why did they bother? I did make a 35-40% Amber Malt "historical" beer (recipe from Durden Park Beer Club booklet ... available on-line now!) from modern Amber Malt. That was many years ago and the result was unbearably astringent. (like "go chew on a sloe" astringent) Made me realise there was something very, very different about historical Amber Malt and modern (brown too).


("Sloes" in the US? Spelling checker doesn't think so! Anyway ... one of the ancient hedgerow ancestors of "Plums". Try to eat a sloe and you'll have your a*** in your mouth).