Which type of smoke should I add to my Wee Heavy?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

How should I smoke my Wee Heavy?

  • Alder

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • Apple

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Beech

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Birch

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cherry

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • Lavender

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mesquite

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Oak

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • Pecan

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • Smoke-Free

    Votes: 25 75.8%

  • Total voters
    33

AlexKay

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
2,642
Reaction score
8,699
Location
South Bend
I know, probably not historically accurate, but for what it's worth, the BJCP style guidelines do say "Hints of roasted malt may be present (sometimes perceived as a faint smoke character)," and that has me thinking. Rather than rely on roast malt and hope that some smokiness comes through, I'm thinking I'll add a little bit (~1% of the grist) of smoked malt. But which kind, is the question? (Peat is not listed as an option!)
 
Everyone reads that and thinks they should add smoked malt. Remember, it says "hints". That means there's something there, something minute that hints of smoke. This comes from roasted malt that you add, not from smoke malt. I don't advise using smoked malt in any form of any Scottish ale. Really, it usually doesn't turn out well.
If you're still set on using it, use trace amounts, maybe around 1% of the bill, and certainly no more than 8%. Definitely not peat smoked, in anything, ever. Weyerman, Viking, Briess all carry one. I'm not the biggest fan of Briess, but that's just my opinion. Get some samples and chew on them, you'll know which one after that.
 
1% is what I was thinking, maybe half that if it's a particularly highly smoked malt. And I have samples! Pounds, actually, of each of the smoked malts listed. I'm leaning toward alder because of its little bit of residual sweetness, but I also have some really nice cherry-smoked oats. But then maybe pecan ... hence, the poll.
 
I just made a smoked beer with 75% Sugar Creek pecan smoked malt and it had a nice flavor, not overly strong but distinct. Briess cherry wood has a stronger and sweeter flavor, almost like bacon. Weyerman beechwood has the weakest smoked flavor of the three. You could probably get away with any of them with the percentage you plan on using. If you use Weyerman I would up the percentage a point or two for a hint of flavor.
 
All the above are Sugar Creek (where else would I get lavender), except for the mesquite (Briess). If I go with alder (probably not, given the poll results) I’ll use Stjordal, which is really strong, at a fraction of a percent.
 
I've used cherry & oak in wee heavies. I definitely liked cherry better. But both worked. (And I agree you want to err on the side of using very little).
 
Given the votes, I'm going to try it first without adding smoke.

Here's what I have for a 1.25-gallon batch:
4.5 lbs. English pale
0.125 lbs. DRC
0.125 lbs. chocolate rye
0.5 lbs. muscovado sugar
4 g Magnum @ 60
5 g Fuggle @ 5
Lallemand London

I'm going for "tasty" over "authentic," but is this a WH at this point, or is it more an English Barleywine, or something else entirely?
 
Well, a Wee Heavy isn't a style brewed by Scottish brewers, but your attempt at a Scottish strong ale looks like it's in the ballpark. Also in the ballpark? An English barleywine, especially with London. Take a look at historical Edinburgh ales vs London-brewed Burton Ales. More similarities than not.
 
Wee Heavy is not an authentic Scottish ale anyway. Thats looks like a wee heavy recipe to me. You could use a Scottish yeast if you wanted to drive the point home, but not necessary.
 
Think it is a good call on going smokeless first. Then you can follow-up with a smoked version while the beer ages a little. This will allow you to try both and take a few notes if the differences and what you prefer
 
To those saying Wee Heavy isn't a Scottish ale... it was brewed in Scotland was it not? Wee Heavy may be a questionable style but it was most certainly Scottish. The real name for the beer was Fowler's Twelve Guinea Ale. In advertising it was given the slogan "Wee Heavy". Making it a style is a bit like making a style called "Head for the Mountains" after the Bush beer slogan.
 
To those saying Wee Heavy isn't a Scottish ale... it was brewed in Scotland was it not? Wee Heavy may be a questionable style but it was most certainly Scottish. The real name for the beer was Fowler's Twelve Guinea Ale. In advertising it was given the slogan "Wee Heavy". Making it a style is a bit like making a style called "Head for the Mountains" after the Bush beer slogan.
Well, if we are to go off the 2022 BJCP guidelines as to what a Wee Heavy is (which it is a style here), then it is classified as 17c Strong British Ale. However, it states in the history section that it is a descendant of Edinburg Ales, which would be Scottish.
 
I don't pretend to be a beer historian. But there are lots of seemingly credible websites t he at state things like the following....

"Scottish Ales were traditionally brewed in Scotland and were either “light” (under 3.5% ABV), “heavy” (between 3.5 and 4% ABV), “export” (between 4 and 5.5% ABV), or “wee heavy” (over 6% ABV). Scotch Ales, now synonymous with the category “Wee Heavy,” are a product of the twentieth century and represent mostly American and Belgian interpretations of the style."

https://www.hopculture.com/definiti...w synonymous with,light copper to dark brown.
 
If you want smoke in your Wee Heavy, you'll need at least 50% peat malt to get that mysterious hint of smoke. If you want it to cross the flavor threshold, I'd heartily suggest at least 75% peat malt.

That should get you what you deserve. ;)

Joking aside, you're not brewing a Wee Heavy, you're brewing a smoked Scotch Ale. There's a huge difference between the two....mostly, the fact that smoked Scotch Ales only seem to be a thing in N. America.
 
If it were me, I’d do a couple stovetop gallon pilot batches to try out your favorite smoked malts. They can grow on you, but they aren’t for everyone.

5 gallons is a lot to suffer through if it isn’t exactly to your liking.
My normal batch sizes are 1.25 and 2.5 gallons; this one is going to be a 1.25. Though this could be the time to break out my equipment for 0.25-gallon batches...
 
I'll be the detractor here and say I once added 2oz of peat malt (~1%) in a strong scotch ale and enjoyed it. Sacrilege I know. Would I do it again? Probably not, and I haven't done it since, which maybe speaks louder than my opinion, but I did enjoy that beer. It was subtle, but noticeable. I also soaked some oak cubes in bourbon & scotch and added ~4oz of that to the finished beer (5gal batch). It all played very nicely together.

Authenticity or true to BJCP was not a priority for me (clearly). I'd go with anything except mesquite or lavender on your list.

PS Highly recommend 1728 for this style. It's a great strain, I like it around 58F then bump up at the end to finish. It chugs big beers like a champ.
 
To those saying Wee Heavy isn't a Scottish ale... it was brewed in Scotland was it not? Wee Heavy may be a questionable style but it was most certainly Scottish. The real name for the beer was Fowler's Twelve Guinea Ale. In advertising it was given the slogan "Wee Heavy". Making it a style is a bit like making a style called "Head for the Mountains" after the Bush beer slogan.
It wasn't so much a slogan, it was an informal nickname that for a while was adopted as the official name of the Fowler's beer. It was a "heavy" (ie strong) beer that came in "wee" (small) bottles - I know someone who was deceived by the bottle size and it all went horribly wrong....

Fowler's disappeared in the merger mania of the 1960s - initially being subsumed into Eddie Taylor's Northern Breweries, which turned into Bass Charrington and then InBev They closed the Fowler brewery but 12 Guinea Ale continued to be brewed at Heriot brewery in Edinburgh and subsequently at Belhaven until 2005. George Howell brewed at Heriot before becoming head brewer at Belhaven, so there was continuity there, and likewise when Belhaven launched their own Wee Heavy after InBev discontinued the Fowler brand. So never mind what the BJCP say, Wee Heavy is a historical reality of which the Belhaven version is the standard bearer - and that uses just pale malt with a bit of black :
https://www.belhaven.co.uk/our-beers/belhaven-wee-heavy/
Feel free to make a smoked beer, just don't call it a wee heavy because it's simply not what a wee heavy is.
 
We brew one rauchbier that we first did with Alder but did once we did cherry (new at the LHBS). We just use Cherry Now. We do more than a hint( 25%) but I would say that it is the aroma that is most effected. Our beer smells like bacon but has no bacon taste. The first time we brewed I thought we had made a terrible mistake as the fermenter smells like we had thrown a ham bone in the wort. It is one of our favorite beers. Do not be afraid of smoked grain! It does lose it aroma after a while. Best in first 'month after fermentation for the aroma but tastes fine for a long time.
 
We brew one rauchbier that we first did with Alder but did once we did cherry (new at the LHBS). We just use Cherry Now. We do more than a hint( 25%) but I would say that it is the aroma that is most effected. Our beer smells like bacon but has no bacon taste. The first time we brewed I thought we had made a terrible mistake as the fermenter smells like we had thrown a ham bone in the wort. It is one of our favorite beers. Do not be afraid of smoked grain! It does lose it aroma after a while. Best in first 'month after fermentation for the aroma but tastes fine for a long time.
My raunchier has beech and alder smoke, and is one the best things I made (and has been the only beer I've made to place in a competition's "best of show.") I just brewed one today!

The spruce ale I'm drinking now has cherry-smoked oats, and too much of them. Hard to taste the spruce. Not bad, but not what I was shooting for.
 
All this talk of smoke has me excited, so I rummaged through my hoard and came up with these two. Chilled to 35F, not a bunch of warm Scotch ales, but ice cold lagers. Which should I drink? Both?
30FE458C-C959-4041-B840-D7D04F953D8F.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Ok I couldn’t wait, drinking the Dopplebock. Nice smoke on the front end, palate seems to adjust to the onslaught further you get into the pint. Oak smoke on this pounder, they use Beech on the Rauchbier. 8.0% ABV, perfect for watching politicians blow smoke on this election night….!
A0F7BE28-090E-4A0C-AB56-1434BF9FC5A7.jpeg
 
One of my favorite "scotch ales" is made by Hop Haus, in Fitchburg, WI -- called Plaid Panther -- it's definitely got some peat lurking in the background...
Haven't had one since stupid Covid, sadly.
 
Ok I couldn’t wait, drinking the Dopplebock. Nice smoke on the front end, palate seems to adjust to the onslaught further you get into the pint. Oak smoke on this pounder, they use Beech on the Rauchbier. 8.0% ABV, perfect for watching politicians blow smoke on this election night….!View attachment 785820
The yellow one is just disgusting. Bought that once to give it a try...... Bahhhhh
 
But if the definition of Wee Heavy doesn't include smoke, you can still just call it Smoked Wee Heavy and be fine/accurate.
There comes a point where you're just so far removed from the original, very specific, thing, that the words just become meaningless - you might as well call it a smoked bock, or smoked barleywine, or whatever.

Imagine if I as a Brit came to New England promoting my delicious New England clam chowder - with a twist, it's got tomatoes in it! I'd be laughed out of town. There comes a point where it's just not a New England clam chowder any more. Just call it something else, something new.

One of my favorite "scotch ales" is made by Hop Haus, in Fitchburg, WI -- called Plaid Panther -- it's definitely got some peat lurking in the background...
Given what Wisconsin seems to have done to the kringle, forgive me if I'm sceptical of their authority to opine on authenticity in matters of European food and drink....

[hint - Scottish beer never used peat, the breweries and main centres of population are hundreds of miles from where the peat bogs are. Trust me, that's a journey I know well...]
 
Hey it's what we do as Americans. Take European things and make them our own. For better or for worse. I for one love those Racine, WI kringles, even if they are just hydrogenated soybean oil abominations.

Also if you follow American politics/culture these days it's trendy to just make up names for things

Of course factually I agree with everything you said.
 
Given what Wisconsin seems to have done to the kringle, forgive me if I'm sceptical of their authority to opine on authenticity in matters of European food and drink....

[hint - Scottish beer never used peat, the breweries and main centres of population are hundreds of miles from where the peat bogs are. Trust me, that's a journey I know well...]
Most Wisconsin kringles suck pretty bad. However, I've probably eaten about 10 kilos of this one in the last 10 years:

https://unclemikesbakeshoppe.com/
FWIW, while I know the Scottish yeasts supposedly are a source of faint hints of smoky phenols... I have on occasion resorted to adding 0.5 oz (14g) peat smoked malt to a 5 gallon batch. It's often not even detectable, but if it ever is, it's waaaaaay off in the background.

But overall, I tend to agree: We shouldn't be adding smoked malts to our Scottish ales. It's wrong.

But trust me on that Uncle Mike's kringle... holy crap is it ever excellent!
 
Having just come back from Scotland, i can confirm that no beers there have smoke in them. Surprisingly only about half the whisky's even have smoke in them.

I also brewed a Scottish export before going and tried several American versions then tried some 80 and 90 shillings over there. It was readily apparent that American versions are much more strongly flavored than European ones.

For example if an American brews a beer and the beer style calls for bready malt with a hint of caramel and earthy hops, you're likely to get a beer with super rich malt flavor strong in melanoidins and crystal malt and whirlpool hopped with a good earthy hop for lots of flavor.

If you take that same description and brew it like a European brewer it's going to taste almost neutral with base malt being the primary flavor and everything else just very subtle balanced accents and the hops are barely noticable.

In general old world examples tend to be better balanced, very subtle, and very easy to drink
 
Having just come back from Scotland, i can confirm that no beers there have smoke in them. Surprisingly only about half the whisky's even have smoke in them.

I also brewed a Scottish export before going and tried several American versions then tried some 80 and 90 shillings over there. It was readily apparent that American versions are much more strongly flavored than European ones.

For example if an American brews a beer and the beer style calls for bready malt with a hint of caramel and earthy hops, you're likely to get a beer with super rich malt flavor strong in melanoidins and crystal malt and whirlpool hopped with a good earthy hop for lots of flavor.

If you take that same description and brew it like a European brewer it's going to taste almost neutral with base malt being the primary flavor and everything else just very subtle balanced accents and the hops are barely noticable.

In general old world examples tend to be better balanced, very subtle, and very easy to drink
100% on point.
 
+1 @TheMadKing completely nailed. Everything we do here in the states seems to be like a Texas version of everything. A heavy hand in measuring ingredients, but lacking finesse in balance and drinkability. That's a bit of a blanket statement, I know. But, there are many brewers here that nail styles quite well.
 
I'm thankful for Texas versions of things. Big guns, big smokers full of beef, and giant hop-forward beers always pushing style boundaries.

There are quite a few pecan/mesquite/oak smoked beers down here that are excellent. I happen to think a strong scotch ale base fits those really well. Nuts to style guidelines. If you want to smoke some malt and add it, DO IT. Authentic and true to style? Heck no. But absolutely tasty.

I also agree with TheMadKing. I've never found smoke in a beer in Scotland, not even on Islay. And he's right on whisky too, it's generally just the Islays that get peat, and some of them don't even (and they are amazing, btw...unpeated Islays). Incidentally I was just at a brewery bar in Inverness and they had a bunch of American styles. Not great...they were too balanced, too subtle. But the room temp hand pump cask ale at the local pub down the street was perfect. There are some great threads on here how to brew those authentically. Traditional UK cask ales are soul food beers. Smoke is absolutely out of place.

So OP - where is that kringle beer recipe. Also dmtaylor I need to seek out some Uncle Mike's - thanks. At least something is going right in Green Bay
 
I'm thankful for Texas versions of things. Big guns, big smokers full of beef, and giant hop-forward beers always pushing style boundaries.
I'm not talking them down at all. And I agree 100%
Nuts to style guidelines. If you want to smoke some malt and add it, DO IT. Authentic and true to style? Heck no. But absolutely tasty.
Guidelines are like dictionaries, it sets a definition to styles. It's a means of having a base of communication, so that we know what it is that we're talking about. I also agree, brew what you want, however you want. You don't need to adhere to the guidelines. But when you have your final product, you can use the guidelines to communicate what that beer is. You wouldn't call a stout a pilsner, just because you wanted a pilsner that looks, smells, and tastes exactly like a stout. An extreme example, I know. But I'm illustrating my point.
 
Back
Top