Alternative to old brown malt

[ssparks]

I was flicking through the current copy of Brew Your Own magazine (Mar-Apr 22) in Paul Crowther's article on classic British beer, he proposes a modern alternative to the old version of brown malt, and I wanted to see what others thought.

"Munich malt is to represent the kind of brown malt gruit ale brewers would have had at the time. Modern brown ale has no diastatic ability and so cannot form 100% of the recipe as it did back in these times, so old brown malt was probably more like modern Munich malt. A little bit of smoked malt is included to reflect the flavour you'd have gotten from the beer being brewed over an open fire"

So, would this give some potential analogy to historic brown malt?

 

[Sadfield]

I think Gruit is the key word in there. It's possibly a good theory for home malted grain of early domestic brewing but probably not for 'Brown Malt' of industrialised brewing of the 18th century onwards. I don't think 100% Munich would get close to a Porter, in flavour and colour, and give far too much extract. The reason breweries switched from diastatic Brown Malt to Pale and Black malt was the lack of efficiency of the former.

 

[peebee]

Guess I'm expected to say something (although those "expecting" have probably now got their head in their hands saying "oh gawd ... he's here").

Anyway, I'm not going to launch into a vast essay as I might normally do (I want me tea). I've been working on "brown malt emulations" for a few years. I haven't time to actually attempt to make the stuff. Most of my scribblings are on Jim's forum but there is a summary >here< (even Ron Pattinson found himself dragged into that one) and I'll have loads of related stuff kicking about this forum if you search.

Currently drinking an 1804 TT "clone" (emulations of historical pale malt, amber malt, and brown malt). NO black malt (wasn't invented). Heading back to 100% brown malt porters and "Stitch" ales of 18th century before tackling my target of mid-17th century (Civil War) "brown ales" when disgustingly smoky malt was commonplace (but I'll avoid emulating the "disgusting" bit).

There's a month's worth of continuous reading, and I haven't finished yet!

And I agree with @Sadfield ... (Can someone go and check on him? I think that loud thump was him falling on the floor?) ... 100% Munich Malt won't work (but my emulations do use some).




Teatime ... bye!

 

[Sadfield]

Luckily I was already horizontal on the sofa, digesting a roast chicken dinner.

 

[MrRook]

Here's a section of an article of mine about brewing replicas of old British ales that was in the Mar/Apr 2018 Zymurgy.

 

[peebee]

Here's a section of an article of mine about brewing replicas of old British ales that was in the Mar/Apr 2018 Zymurgy.

But today's brown malt is a radically different product. "So today's brown malt might not be a bad approximation" is a bit like saying my (once was) brown hair is (was) the same colour as that horse's brown hair, so perhaps I should have entered for the Grand National (if I could find a jockey to ride me).

 

[Sadfield]

Given that drinkers accommodated the change from diastatic Brown Malt to Pale and Black malt in their Stouts and Porters, I'm inclined the think that from a flavour perspective modern brown could provide a good approximation in the right recipe formulation. However, for other aspects of performance, ie extract etc. probably not.

 

[MrRook]

But today's brown malt is a radically different product. "So today's brown malt might not be a bad approximation" is a bit like saying my (once was) brown hair is (was) the same colour as that horse's brown hair, so perhaps I should have entered for the Grand National (if I could find a jockey to ride me).

Kind of a stretch, but okay.

 

[MrRook]

Given that drinkers accommodated the change from diastatic Brown Malt to Pale and Black malt in their Stouts and Porters, I'm inclined the think that from a flavour perspective modern brown could provide a good approximation in the right recipe formulation. However, for other aspects of performance, ie extract etc. probably not.

I'm pretty sure flavor was mostly what was meant.
I made a porter with maris otter, brown, and a bit of black patent that turned out really good.

 

[peebee]

Given that drinkers accommodated the change from diastatic Brown Malt to Pale and Black malt in their Stouts and Porters, I'm inclined the think that from a flavour perspective modern brown could provide a good approximation in the right recipe formulation. However, for other aspects of performance, ie extract etc. probably not.

Ah, but did the drinkers accommodate the change? When "brown malt" was diluted with "pale malt" brewers had to add all sorts of rubbish in an attempt to keep drinkers quiet. When those additives were banned (partly due to drinkers often ending up too "quiet") "black malt" was introduced which was something of a success ... soon the brewers were having to add more and more "black malt" and creating a vastly different tasting drink to what they originally created. It went on for a while until the drinkers, showing remarkable loyalty, abandoned "porter" (the drink originally made from 100% "brown malt") and started drinking something else entirely.

 

[peebee]

In (a possibly vain) attempt to explain what I wrote in my last post, here's a clip from one of Ron Pattinson's (@patto1ro) books (slightly altered to perhaps avoid the "offensive expletive" detector):

In the pages that follow – if you can be @rsed to turn them - you'll find a collection of my writings on Porter and Stout. Doubtless you'll soon be numbed as I bludgeon you with facts, smashing a couple of simplistic points into your head:
 the cr&p about Stout being roasty and Porter not is just, well, cr&p.
 ...

Pattinson, Ronald. Porter! (Mega Book Series) (Kindle Locations 485-490). Kilderkin. Kindle Edition.

Name dropping for dramatic effect? Well, I'm going to disagree with that bulleted remark (booo!); because I've got a special wedge of 200 years that I can jam between "stout" and "porter". Modern "stout" is roasty because it will be full of roasted malts and grains. Original "porter" would not be roasty because kilning the brown malt back in them days to the point where the malt would show signs of black would result in instantaneous combustion of the entire batch (and probably the malthouse too). (Black malt wasn't invented until 1817).

Here's my recent 1804 Barclay Perkins TT clone:

The "emulations" (pale, amber, and brown historical malts) contain nothing darker than "pale chocolate malt". I can assure anyone looking that it tastes nothing like Guinness! (Phew!).

If you have a "porter" pretending to copy anything from before 1817 that tastes just a tiny bit "roasty", it is a nonsense. The presence of all but very small amounts of "modern" brown malt will result in roasty flavours. Q.E.D?

 

[Sadfield]

If you have a "porter" pretending to copy anything from before 1817 that tastes just a tiny bit "roasty", it is a nonsense.

I'd say the same for anything that hasn't had the benefit of being aged near wood and in the presence of brettanomyces. In my experience that has a dramatic effect on roastiness. I wouldn't claim to have cloned anything either, particularly if I'd not aged it for months to years, that would be nonsence.

It took over a hundred years and two world wars to see off Porter, and several generations of drinkers, so it could hardly have been a rejection based in switching malts, surely?

 

[marshbrewer]

I'd say the same for anything that hasn't had the benefit of being aged near wood and in the presence of brettanomyces.

Genuinely not trying to be pedantic or cause agro here but would they have been anywhere near wood at all? My understanding from RP is that the huge porter vats were tar lined and they went great lengths to *avoid* contact with wood? Totally agree about the Bret, though.

It's all fascinating stuff, though.

 

[Sadfield]

Genuinely not trying to be pedantic or cause agro here but would they have been anywhere near wood at all? My understanding from RP is that the huge porter vats were tar lined and they went great lengths to *avoid* contact with wood? Totally agree about the Bret, though.

It's all fascinating stuff, though.

Quite possibly.

It just occurred to me that Ron Pattinson in his book the Homebrewers Guide to Vintage beer, doesn't distinguish between diastatic Brown Malt and modern brown malt in his recipes. Given that the later is the only one available to homebrewers, one can only assume that he feels it is an adequate substitute.

 

[peebee]

@Sadfield. What weedy, weedy, counterarguments! It's not like you to be clutching at straws. Come on ... you can do better than that?

Brett though, that is something I want to try. Perhaps this year before I leave the Georgian period behind? Those huge wooden vats and long, long storage times were born in the Georgian period (but when in the 18th century? Seemingly quite late?). The idea was near dead by the second half of the Victorian period.

... Homebrewers Guide to Vintage beer, doesn't distinguish between diastatic Brown Malt and modern brown malt ...

You should turn to his Blog for details. He writes tons on brown malts, diastatic brown malts, amber malts, etc., etc. But the book is a great start for nosing about.

 

[Sadfield]

I see the weedy argument that multiple breweries didn't instantly upset all their customers by changing the formulation of their favourite tipple, got ignored there. One only needs to read a Brewdog thread to know how discerning drinkers are. Perhaps I'll try a robust analogy about horseracing next time.

Written extensively about diastatic brown malt, yet still writes recipes using modern brown malt. The original point was that one is a workable alternative for the other, not that they are the same. The same with Maris Otter or Chevallier malt.

It's interesting that the following reports roasty flavours from an attempt to make diastatic brown malt.



http://edsbeer.blogspot.com/2015/02/making-diastatic-brown-malt.html?m=1
'I can't detect any Brett flavour in the beer, it must be over powered by all the roastiness from the malt. The taste of the beer is certainly similar to the beer made with 40% modern brown malt by Head in the Hat brewery'

And from the Fuggledog thread on Jim's.

'All have been diastatic, but the darkest version (hornbeam cured) also developed a very prominent, pleasant, fresh coffee flavour.'

Which sounds very much like Simpsons description of their modern brown malt.

 

[peebee]

Enough! I've already descended to condescension, an ugly tool, so it's time to bow out.

But I've been meaning to do this writeup for a time: It's a "line in the sand" and "where I'm up to" statement (for me mainly!).

@ssparks: Before I go; hope you've gleaned something from all this? Just keep an open mind and don't try and view history through a telescope. It might seem pointless looking back 300 years as I've been doing but it explains a lot of what went on meantime (Was brown malt smoky? Was it not? Did people like it smoky? Did they not? Viewed broadly over a long time period you can answer "yes" to all those questions). Someone on this site pointed me at a very valuable document: The Industrialization of the London Beer-Brewing Trade, 1400-1750. It is BIG and I'll be reading it for ever more it seems (thanks @Hazelwood Brewery!). It is mainly social/economics but explains much (if you have the stamina to get through it).

There were key moments in the development of beer in which "brown malt" played a big part. The start of the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution is underway along with the "Age of Enlightenment": Basically before that time searching for beer recipes gets a bit abstract, not much in the way of published brewing logs, you find yourself gleaning stuff from other sources like in that document linked above. Before then you have much of the Georgian period and the "creation" of Porter. Further back still The Stuarts and Civil War: About the time "Beer" was becoming more accepted and the old gruit "Ales" were declining ("Ales" did continue as hopped "Ales" of which we still have a direct descendant; "Mild" or "mild ale").

After the start of the 19th century, you have 1817. The creation of "black malt" and the means to create it (rotating cylindrical kilns, which went on to produce malts of varying shades, including "brown", crystal malts and developed into the kilns used today). These kilns started producing "brown malt" in place of the traditional kilns (sometimes as "hybrid" processes) during the dying years of Porter, but no readily identifiable dates. "Porter" was beginning to give way to the "upstart" mild ales by about 1850/1860, about the same time as "vatted Porter" ceased to be.

The information from those actually making historic "brown malt" is invaluable. I get a lot from Francois Dyment (Brewing Beer The Hard Way | Growing, malting and brewing beer (wordpress.com) ) but you can find other enthusiasts. @Sadfield mentions "Fuggledog" (Ben) on Jim's forum and you can still find some of his work but I don't know if he's still active (he moved down under some time in the last 10 years). Most replicate the (outside!) open fire methods of 17th century and earlier. I haven't the time (or physical stature!) for all that so I use their results to devise the (excruciatingly) complex "emulations" I mention earlier. Some will try and find a single "modern" malt that "fit's" the qualities of the homemade stuff. I don't agree with this last approach because it traps you to one estimate of what historic brown malt was like. Some advise a "halfway house" (like Durden Park Beer Club | Original Porter (circa 1750)) using only a handful of modern malts in their "emulation".

[EDIT: I neglected to add: "Brown Malt" is a "thing" now, but 300 years ago it was a "consequence" of what they had to hand.]



Finally: What you must not lose sight of is that you're a brewer, not a historian. And what you produce must be worth drinking! I've certainly enjoyed the output from my experiments: I'm not quite content with my "1804 malt emulations" just yet (too caramelly?), but my current 1804 TT emulation (a pre-black malt "Porter") is currently my favoured go-to beer at this moment!




This will be reproduced on Jim's forum should you see it there. Well, it represents quite a lot of work, I'm going to want to spread it about!

 

[ssparks]

@peebee @Sadfield @marshbrewer @MrRook Many thanks for some very interesting reading, I shall take everything said into account.