Brewer's Invert Sugar (Part II)

[peebee]

The outcome of my Invert Sugar trials using "Hancock XX 1898" mild attempts containing either "real" Ragus "Dark" (No.3) Invert Sugar or an emulation of the same:

This is the one containing the "real" Ragus "Dark" (No.3) Invert Sugar. Carried in a PET bottle for a mile so a bit lacking "head"! Well, I haven't gotten the hand-pump sorted for clamping to picnic tables yet (and it's heavy)! If you are disappointed with the colour this is what 13.5% of real No.3 Invert Sugar gives you! So, get used to it and don't believe the hype. The "emulation" of the Invert Sugar produced a beer of identical colour.

The only other fermentable ingredient is Chavallier barley malt, and it always gives me a haze! I'm not fining at present time.

Flavour and aroma: I thought the Ragus Invert Sugar gave a fuller and more rounded finish compared to the "emulation" (blend of two "raw" cane sugars, not "inverted", and predominantly sucrose). But presented with the beers "blind", I couldn't tell the difference. So, take your choice, use "real" Ragus Invert Sugar and have the smug feeling of using the "real deal", or use the emulations with no loss of quality. Something for everyone? Or opt for the bone-head option and spend ages over a hot stove caramelising sugar (it'll still taste okay-ish, but not very "correct", and haven't you got better things to do?).

I'm still working on the "emulations" because I've found the sugars I use (like Billington's Dark Muscovado Sugar) are not very consistent colour-wise. I need a more "static" colour example to act as an index.


The background of the piccie is Llyn Trawsfynydd. Infamous for being the home of Britain's only inland nuclear power station (they are still decommissioning it after 25 years off-line!).

 

[peebee]

I'll be repeating the trial with "Eldridge Pope 1911 AK" copies. That'll use "No.2" Invert Sugar.

So, "to be continued"!

 

[peebee]

I'll be repeating the trial with "Eldridge Pope 1911 AK" copies. That'll use "No.2" Invert Sugar. ...

No I won't! I've not got enough Ragus "No.2" ("M") for that.

I'll use another recipe out of Ron Pattinson's "AK" book: "Boddington's 1901 AK". Requires a little less "No.2" Invert (still a healthy, near enough, 12.5%).

Of course, the amount of "emulated" No.2 Invert isn't a problem 'cos I can make up that stuff in a jiffy. A couple of days ago it was No.3 and No.4 for a Boddington's 1901 Stout (Let's Brew ...1901 Boddington Stout). No comparison, 'cos no-one makes a No.4 commercially. Just doing it out of interest.

It's piddly-weak (still stronger than what Guinness pass off as "stout"), but probably what can be expected from Boddington, even back then?


It's the great thing about "emulations": There's never the problem of sourcing the "real-deal". But it should be remembered, Ragus are "emulating" the Invert that was around in Victorian times! The original source materials just do not exist any longer, so Ragus flavour their Invert that's made from highly refined "invert syrup" with suitable "molasses".


I've still made no attempt to "invert" my emulations. Why bother, the sucrose emulation is indistinguishable. I think previous rants on Invert Sugars were comparing white sugar with Invert Sugar. Now that would be very different. But I have ordered some Dextrose to use as a base for the emulations (I'm not insensitive to @marshbrewer's criticism that my emulations might start a bit slower, or ignoring that the emulations, and the real-deal, are fermenting more tardily ... possibly due to fructose as @chthon suggested). Dextrose will mean there's no point "inverting" (Dextrose, aka D-glucose, is a monosaccharide) and will also exclude all but a bit of fructose. Note: I'm not suggesting Dextrose yet, just exploring whether it might make things easier.


[EDIT: An error, sorry: There was about 12.5% sugar used in the recipe, not 10% like I'd written down (I had added 12.5% to the beer!). Corrected in the text above. I've checked the other parameter's I wrote down too. I must have been having a "rest day" yesterday.]

 

[peebee]

Ah. I'm making the common error of drawing conclusions too early:

A (Boddington's) Stout using a sucrose based emulated "Invert Sugar": It started in six hours and is finishing in 36 hours. Stronger than those "Hancock XX" brews too. Things never go to plan! If I'm lucky Malt Miller is out of stock of "Dextrose", and I'll not receive it? ... Unlikely!



[EDIT: Can't read a clock (finishing in 18 hours?) and the colours of my graph axis were confusing.]

 

[peebee]

I'm still cracking away at this "project". Currently on the "Invert Sugar No.2" stage utilising the recipe for "Boddington's 1901 AK" (I hope it's more inspiring than the "Boddington's 1901 Stout" recipe!). Both on the go, the Dextrose did turn up and is being used as the "base" sugar in my "No.2" invert sugar emulation. The one with Ragus's emulation is already casked. The fermentation profiles are nearly identical, including my emulation using Dextrose as the base (Ragus Invert first):

... and with my "Invert" emulation ...

The first with Ragus Invert is casked when it had an SG beforehand of 1.0145 (pyknometer). The second (my emulation) is a couple of days off casking and is displaying an SG of 1.0135 (TiltPRO). Both started in the same time, a matter of minutes, not hours, but had a leisurely early phase to fermentation of about six hours (very fast starts are not supposed to be too good, but I'll have to wait two or three weeks to discover if anything evil happened the beers because of the quick start). Both primary ferments are done in under 36 hours. The Ragus Invert containing one had a particularly bumpy ferment; this usually means a heavier yeast cap, but I'm never going to know (the lid stayed on!).

After the trial with "No.3 Invert Sugar" (Hancock 1898 XX, Mild), I'm not expecting much in the way of "revelations" in these trials ... No.2 Invert is less flavoured than No.3 (the trials of which produced no obvious flavour differences).