Underpitching methods for English Bitter?

[McMullan]

I have made quite the oposite experience. The molasses gets quite nicely smoothed out flovour-wise, if boiled together with the inverted cane sugar under acidic conditions. There certainly are a lot of Maillard reactions going on, as the outcome does not have much to do any more with the molasses flavour.

Why do you aim to smooth out the flavour? Maybe add less later to start with?

 

[Miraculix]

Why do you aim to smooth out the flavour? Maybe add less later to start with?

Maybe I was using the wrong words. Molasses itself does not taste like it belongs in a beer to me. Especially not when all the sugar is gone. However, after boiling it together with the inverted sugar under acidic conditions, the flavour changed into something that I definitely want in my beer.

 

[monkeymath]

...if boiled together with the inverted cane sugar under acidic conditions.

Well, by the description above, the acid is neutralised before the molasses are added, so at least with the process laid out by Ragus, there won't be an "acidic condition" any more.
Furthermore, the way I understood it, the mixture is cooled immediately after the molasses are added, so there's no boiling either. But the description is not entirely clear on that point, there could be a timespan where the mixture is at elevated temperatures. But, even then, I wonder how boiling the molasses "together with (pH-neutralized) invert syrup" differs from "regular boiling" (with a bit of water)?

 

[McMullan]

If the aim is to produce inverts from unrefined cane sugar there’s no need to include molasses in the cooking. I cheat by adding crystallized molasses to prepped #1. I only use the finest Mauritian cane sugar

But if some like a little molasses added during the cooking that’s fine too. I’d recommend adding a little when inverting highly refined sucrose. What I’ve found in Norway is the ‘cane sugar’ is poor quality and looks more like refined beet sugar sprayed with ‘molasses‘. That’s exactly what it tastes like too. One dimensional sweetness. Boring. The crystals aren’t supposed to turn white before dissolving I managed to get some genuine cane sugar in Sweden, but it worked out quite expensive, even when factored in our regular cross-border shopping trip. So I got a mate in Britain to ship over 20 kg of various Billington’s sugars, which worked out the best option, in terms of cost and quality.

 

[Miraculix]

Well, by the description above, the acid is neutralised before the molasses are added, so at least with the process laid out by Ragus, there won't be an "acidic condition" any more.
Furthermore, the way I understood it, the mixture is cooled immediately after the molasses are added, so there's no boiling either. But the description is not entirely clear on that point, there could be a timespan where the mixture is at elevated temperatures. But, even then, I wonder how boiling the molasses "together with (pH-neutralized) invert syrup" differs from "regular boiling" (with a bit of water)?

Exactly, that is the point of the whole discussion here.

 

[cire]

Well, by the description above, the acid is neutralised before the molasses are added, so at least with the process laid out by Ragus, there won't be an "acidic condition" any more.
Furthermore, the way I understood it, the mixture is cooled immediately after the molasses are added, so there's no boiling either. But the description is not entirely clear on that point, there could be a timespan where the mixture is at elevated temperatures. But, even then, I wonder how boiling the molasses "together with (pH-neutralized) invert syrup" differs from "regular boiling" (with a bit of water)?

I don't neutralise before adding extra sugars after conversion is assumed to be complete, but RAGUS do neutralise before adding their molasses after they confirm inversion by polarimeter. But as RAGUS refine from pulped cane, they have access to all byproducts and their additions are likely not we can buy as molasses from a local shop.

While some soft and dark brown sugars are made by combining refined sugar and molasses, I don't choose those, but instead add partially or unrefined sugars and those are quite different. Billington's Light and Dark Muscovado are such examples as well as that suggested by @McMullan.

RAGUS do not boil when making invert sugars as it isn't necessary for their method. As I expressed previously, there is an inbuilt belief, perhaps by the majority of homebrewers, that boiling is an essential process for making invert sugar and it is not. By neutralising, the process is ended, and the blocks can take up to a week to cool and set. While RAGUS invert at pH <=1.6 or lower at 70C, at my scale achieving a steady 70C was impossible, so when my samples were tested, just over half was no longer sugar, most being destroyed in that process. Even so, they still made beer, just not as good as when using the commercial product. Further testing determined simmering for a brief period at pH <=2.0 would achieve a suitable level of conversion without burning the sugars and that has been my process since.

I don't know the real answer to your question as to the difference between boiling the molasses "together with (pH-neutralized) invert syrup" from "regular boiling" with a bit of water, but a laboratory could if you sent them samples to analyse.

 

[dan46nbrew]

Allright, finally kegged the Mean Brews version. Wow, much better! It's what I have read these bitters should taste like. It's less roasty, more malty, and more pleasant to drink, more session-able. The David Heath version isn't bad but its too roasty. Again I've never had a bitter so I don't know which one is more authentic but the Mean Brews is more to my liking.

 

[Elric]

Allright, finally kegged the Mean Brews version. Wow, much better! It's what I have read these bitters should taste like. It's less roasty, more malty, and more pleasant to drink, more session-able. The David Heath version isn't bad but its too roasty. Again I've never had a bitter so I don't know which one is more authentic but the Mean Brews is more to my liking.

Glad you liked it better. I have a really hard time calling that DH recipe a strong bitter between the malt and yeast choices, the mean brews is definitely the more authentic recipe

cheers!

 

[Miraculix]

Allright, finally kegged the Mean Brews version. Wow, much better! It's what I have read these bitters should taste like. It's less roasty, more malty, and more pleasant to drink, more session-able. The David Heath version isn't bad but its too roasty. Again I've never had a bitter so I don't know which one is more authentic but the Mean Brews is more to my liking.

I've never had a roasty bitter. I lived five years in the UK.

 

[cire]

Good to learn of the progress with your second brew. Potentially you could have some modifications in mind for future brews. Small amounts of darker grains are used in such beers, but mostly for color and not to a level that influences flavor.

Woke up this morning to realize why RAGUS might add molasses after neutralizing. Invert sugar demand by brewers will be small compared to that by bakers. Accordingly, it seems sensible for large batches of invert to be produced and neutralized as described on their website. Brewing sugars and other partial invert products would then be individually made with the stabilized invert.

 

[eshea3]

Good to learn of the progress with your second brew. Potentially you could have some modifications in mind for future brews. Small amounts of darker grains are used in such beers, but mostly for color and not to a level that influences flavor.

Woke up this morning to realize why RAGUS might add molasses after neutralizing. Invert sugar demand by brewers will be small compared to that by bakers. Accordingly, it seems sensible for large batches of invert to be produced and neutralized as described on their website. Brewing sugars and other partial invert products would then be individually made with the stabilized invert.

I recall in some of Ron's writings he refers to proprietary sugars. I would hazard a guess that some of these were made in-house and we really don't know the techniques use to make them. As far as the present times, home brewers lack the equipment and ability to produce sugar in the manner described by RAGUS. So we compromise with our home made versions which are a bit of a throwback to those proprietary sugars perhaps

 

[eshea3]

I would confirm the recipe you link is very currently typical of a UK brewed Bitter, including some from Yorkshire. A reason for the absence of invert sugar is the current cost and availability, particularly for smaller breweries. Currently a kg of refined cane sugar costs me 65 pence, about 90 cents, which overall is less expensive than the same weight of malt. It does take time to make, but it adds flavor that is not obtained from malt and makes a clearer beer.

I won't fault that beer recipe, it's great, just that i would use a little less crystal and add some inverted sugar.

Actually my most recent iterations of my poor attempt to imitate Landlord are simply GP and invert sugar.

 

[cire]

I recall in some of Ron's writings he refers to proprietary sugars. I would hazard a guess that some of these were made in-house and we really don't know the techniques use to make them. As far as the present times, home brewers lack the equipment and ability to produce sugar in the manner described by RAGUS. So we compromise with our home made versions which are a bit of a throwback to those proprietary sugars perhaps

Indeed, probably a lot more happened than we can ever know. Graham Wheeler said he had seen tankers going into breweries where he'd been told they didn't use sugar.

I think many sugar additions might have been waste product from sugar refineries, some for the better, others cost saving. I spent time gathering together Ron's pieces on sugar and I think he did that in one piece. My purpose then was to attempt to decode the sugar additions in brewing logs held in our county's archives, but gained very little knowledge. @Miraculix posted a link to Ron's blog where Ron writes "the sugar in question was something called Glebe." So I tried searching that to find the Glebe Sugar Refining Company", a business in Greenock taken over by a Mr. Lyle who later joined in a business venture with a Mr. Tate. We just go around in circles.

The brewery whose records I examined added Hydrol for a while. This I later found was the equivalent in corn sugar manufacturing as molasses is in cane sugar production. I suspect RAGUS produce what brewers demand or desired, while in early times some brewers might often use what did best for least cost. Today we can do similar, but don't necessarily need to spend hours over boiling syrup.

Just checking the log to see I tried brewing Landlord over 3 years from 2014 using their actual yeast and came nowhere near their casked product. I think it owes a lot to their process, particularly the hops in their hopback.

 

[Miraculix]

Good to learn of the progress with your second brew. Potentially you could have some modifications in mind for future brews. Small amounts of darker grains are used in such beers, but mostly for color and not to a level that influences flavor.

Woke up this morning to realize why RAGUS might add molasses after neutralizing. Invert sugar demand by brewers will be small compared to that by bakers. Accordingly, it seems sensible for large batches of invert to be produced and neutralized as described on their website. Brewing sugars and other partial invert products would then be individually made with the stabilized invert.

This really makes sense. This also means that it's more a monetary aspect, not focused on the best possible outcome. One might see this as a hint that the Maillard reactions actually are something desirable and that the ragus method is more a trade-off between being able to sell it to breweries while keeping production costs down by not having to make extra batches for breweries.

 

[cire]

This really makes sense. This also means that it's more a monetary aspect, not focused on the best possible outcome. One might see this as a hint that the Maillard reactions actually are something desirable and that the ragus method is more a trade-off between being able to sell it to breweries while keeping production costs down by not having to make extra batches for breweries.

I can go quite a long way with those thoughts and comments, but with some reservations.

Money is always an influence in whatever is done. A prime advantage of using sugar in brewing is to make a stronger beer at the same quantity, or a larger volume of your usual beer without a larger mash tun. Also is lower nitrogen content, making the beer clear easier requiring a shorter maturation period. Improved flavor is probably lower down the list, but sugar is added to nearly all of my brews because it reduces overall effort and makes better beer.

Some beers won't benefit from Maillard inclusions, but for those that do, they won't necessarily have to be from the sugar component. Invertase will invert sugar for use in hives and in breweries without heat. It can be darken by heating if or when desired, but not the other way about.

 

[McMullan]

Ironically, most of the commercial invertase used comes from yeast grown in bioreactors. If it were merely cost considerations for Brewers then why use inverted sugar at all? Why not use sucrose? Like @cire, I add invert to most of my brews, because it helps make better beer. The only sucrose based addition I've been happy with, in terms of improved flavour of the beer, is good quality Demerara, but it's better inverted. In terms of fermentation/yeast performance, invert additions are beneficial. Glucose and fructose molecules (inverted sucrose) diffuse passively across the yeast cell membrane, whereas as sucrose requires invertase to be synthesised then secreted into the wort, to convert sucrose to glucose and fructose. By promoting wort fermentability Brewers can reduce yeast stress and (therefore) improve fermentation performance.

 

[eshea3]

Invert sugar question. I've inverted 1# of sugar and used the Ron Pattionson method to make #3. Weight of the resulting syrup is 1# 3 oz (roughly 540 g). Do I treat this as 1# or 1# 3 oz in my calculations. My view is there is still only 1# of sugar in the resulting syrup, but like to hear other thoughts.

 

[Miraculix]

Invert sugar question. I've inverted 1# of sugar and used the Ron Pattionson method to make #3. Weight of the resulting syrup is 1# 3 oz (roughly 540 g). Do I treat this as 1# or 1# 3 oz in my calculations. My view is there is still only 1# of sugar in the resulting syrup, but like to hear other thoughts.

I'd hack it as 1 pound of sugar into my calculator.

 

[VikeMan]

Invert sugar question. I've inverted 1# of sugar and used the Ron Pattionson method to make #3. Weight of the resulting syrup is 1# 3 oz (roughly 540 g). Do I treat this as 1# or 1# 3 oz in my calculations. My view is there is still only 1# of sugar in the resulting syrup, but like to hear other thoughts.

I'd treat it as 1 pound of sugar and 3 ounces water. I'd also reduce the estimated fermentability of that one pound, since some of it has been turned into non-sugar.

 

[eshea3]

I'd hack it as 1 pound of sugar into my calculator.

If my math is right on my gravities, 1# is correct

 

[cire]

Ragus advise that their solid invert sugars are 95% fermentable. From that I presumed 5% to be unfermentable.

Graham Wheeler rated commercial solid inverts to provide 96% of the extract available from white sugar (sucrose).

It seems improbable that more extract will be available after processing sugar and would suggest it will be a bit less than 1 pound of sugar.

 

[eshea3]

Ragus advise that their solid invert sugars are 95% fermentable. From that I presumed 5% to be unfermentable.

Graham Wheeler rated commercial solid inverts to provide 96% of the extract available from white sugar (sucrose).

It seems improbable that more extract will be available after processing sugar and would suggest it will be a bit less than 1 pound of sugar.

in the amounts I am using it the difference is miniscule, so just as easy to use the 1# and not worry about the .005 points of gravity. Others may want to account for that, but for my brewing style it's close enough.

 

[cire]

Ah, sorry. I'd thought you were calculating potential alcohol content. I think you will be right on gravity, but in the back of my mind a mix of glucose and fructose might be a molecule of water less than sucrose. That's possibly also only theoretical.

 

[VikeMan]

I think you will be right on gravity, but in the back of my mind a mix of glucose and fructose might be a molecule of water less than sucrose. That's possibly also only theoretical.

Sucrose dosn't contain an extra H2O molecule. It's sort of the reverse... An H2O molecule has to be provided from outside when sucrose is split into glucose and fructose. From that external H2O molecule, an H ends up in glucose and the OH ends up in fructose.

 

[Erik the Anglophile]

Invert sugar question. I've inverted 1# of sugar and used the Ron Pattionson method to make #3. Weight of the resulting syrup is 1# 3 oz (roughly 540 g). Do I treat this as 1# or 1# 3 oz in my calculations. My view is there is still only 1# of sugar in the resulting syrup, but like to hear other thoughts.

I usually weigh the jar I store the invert in, and weigh the amount of sugar used. Then I can weigh the whole thing when it's cooked, subtract the weight of the jar and use the weight of the syrup vs the amount of sugar used to calculate sugar content in %.

 

[cire]

Sucrose dosn't contain an extra H2O molecule. It's sort of the reverse... An H2O molecule has to be provided from outside when sucrose is split into glucose and fructose. From that external H2O molecule, an H ends up in glucose and the OH ends up in fructose.

Thank you for that clarification. I have a kind of limited respect for chemistry in brewing, believing it deserves more care than being symbolized in formulae.

To invert sugar, I make a saturated solution of sucrose at 70C and, with gently warming heat applied, add the appropriate amount of hydrochloric acid. After several seconds the syrup can be seen going from slightly cloudy to bright and clear. I suppose it is that which my mind wrongly interprets the mix then to have more liquid and less solids presents. Will try to correct that logic in future.

As the solutions begins to simmer, an extra 5% sugar (sucrose) solids will dissolve, and retain that state when cools, so suggest some degree of inversion can have taken place.

 

[eshea3]

Came across this article Corn Syrup Isn't Evil (& Here's Why)

Not brewing related, but a good discussion of glucose syrup with a mention of invert sugar.

BTW if one is looking for invert sugar without any coloration, LD Carlson now distributes a product called Liquid Invert Sugar (Medium).

 

[cire]

Came across this article

Not brewing related, but a good discussion of glucose syrup with a mention of invert sugar.

BTW if one is looking for invert sugar without any coloration, LD Carlson now distributes a product called Liquid Invert Sugar (Medium).

Corn syrup is indeed valuable to the brewer, preferably partially refined if it can be obtained.

The waste or by-product seen above is called Hydrol and as seen in the brewlog below was used in brewing.

Pa is for Pale Ale Malt, Ma for Mild Ale Malt, FM is Flaked Maize with Hydrol and Invert Sugar. I used to drink those beers.

 

[eshea3]

ESB is not a style, ESB is a specific beer brewed by Fuller's. I have no idea who messed this up (hi bjcp!), but it is the same as with wee heavy. Also a specific beer, not a style.

This has been my belief as well. I also understood that Fullers had registered and defended the ESB trademark.
However in the last week or so I came across a social media post by Georgina Young - formerly of Fullers, now of St. Austell - about St. Austell Retrospect which is being marketed as a Limited Edition E.S.B. That also caused a recollection of a beer from Anspach & Hobday down in London which is sold as "The London ESB".
More than a bit curious about why Fullers has not challenged these and on the whole ESB/Strong Bitter dichotomy.

 

[OpenFermenter]

My stock includes inverts #1, #2 and #3 made by the only remaining brewing sugar manufacturer in Britain, Ragus. It is my opinion that we cannot accurately replicate their product without a vast amount of work and some specialized equipment, but that we can produce something similar enough to enhance our beers enough to warrant the small necessary cost and effort.

Invert sugar is glucose and fructose in combination. Sucrose can be converted to invert by various methods, but a combination of heat and acid is the quickest, and the method used by Ragus, described in the earlier link. In basic terms, the higher the temperature and/or the lower the pH of a sucrose solution, the quicker inversion happens. Once inversion has completed by this method, it is necessary to slow/stop it by reducing temperature and/or raising pH, else the fructose and sucrose so produced will be modified to other substances. Ragus heat their sucrose (refined cane sugar) solution to 70C, when all sugar goes into solution, suggesting the ratio by weight will be, two parts sucrose to one part water. This temperature is then maintained, when acid is added to pH 1.6 and the mixture is stirred continuously. Samples are taken and measured in a polarimeter until refracted light reaches minus 20 degrees (why it is called inverted sugar). A base is then added to increase pH and substantially slow/stop the process.

A molecule of sucrose releases one of water when inverted, and sugar can be dissolved in newly converted invert. Ragus do this to create their different grades of brewing sugars. #1 will have added raw cane sugar, #2 some with more unrefined product while #3 will likely have almost pure molasses addition and this is when most American made inverts diverge from British.

I frequently read American advice to increase temperature to produce a darker invert sugar, which it does, but, it does by caramelizing inverted sugars rather than adding other flavors. In Britain if we want to darken a beer and add caramel flavors, we add Brewers Caramel.

View attachment 758076

I found it very difficult to hold a sugar solution at 70C and when I tried pH 1.6 while simmering, the converted sugars quickly degraded. Now I add enough acid when the sugar dissolves that would achieve pH 2.0. I then simmer for up to 5 minutes when the solution changes from clear to a soft/light yellow. At that point more sugar is added (5%) and mixed in before the heat is removed and a small amount of sodium bicarbonate is added. For #1 a light brown or white sugar, #2 a dark brown sugar and for #3 molasses or blackstrap or Black Treacle. A near heaped spoon of citric acid crystals will produce pH 2.0 in a mixture of a kg of cane sugar and 500 ml of low alkalinity water.

Hi @cire, I'll try making invert #2 this weekend, what would be a sensible amount of sodium bicarbonate to add after the ~5mins at 70C step (after dissolving the extra 5% sugar) for 1kg sugar in 500ml water.