Modern mild - am I really the only brewer who makes it?

[Pennine]

This link is really off-subject (it's not talking modern mild!), but as the thread has wandered a bit it might help?

A Short History of Mild

It's 15 years old, so Mr Pattinson's views might have changed a little bit?

I'm currently enjoying a "Truman 1909 X" (X-Ales morphed into "Mild") having ripped the recipe out of Mr Pattinson's scribblings. 6% ABV! It represents an early beginning to darker Milds and a rare use of crystal malt in those days. A more recent recipe (1939, same brewer) halves that to 3% ABV.

@peebee I was wondering if you knew the answer to this, why do most of these historical recipes contain both inverted sugar and corn? I am assuming they are using corn to dry things out, but isn't that achieved by the invert to some extent?

I want to make some of these historical recipes but am gunshy as my recent attempts with sugars have not been too my liking. Basically they are less malty than I expect. It's very likely I am doing something wrong too.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

... and who invented the bcycle.

I had a Raleigh banana great bike I build it from parts obtained from markets. Or car boots.

 

[peebee]

@peebee I was wondering if you knew the answer to this, why do most of these historical recipes contain both inverted sugar and corn? I am assuming they are using corn to dry things out, but isn't that achieved by the invert to some extent?

I want to make some of these historical recipes but am gunshy as my recent attempts with sugars have not been too my liking. Basically they are less malty than I expect. It's very likely I am doing something wrong too.

WE use corn sugar to dry things out. Perhaps they did? Corn sugar has been available to brewers since 19th Century (imported from the States). They also had access to Invert Sugars, unlike what we have access to (and I mean including Ragus Invert - there's no-one else left - but even they must approximate it as things have changed since Victorian times). (PS: Ragus Invert is 20% "corn sugar", aka dextrose, which I might use too 'cos I can't be bothered with all that un-necessary "inverting" palaver).

I do not doubt that it was originally done for cost and availability, but later the qualities of these ingredients were preferred by the drinking public so including them was worthwhile even when they appeared more costly. What the customer wants first, what the brewer wants to supply a reluctant second (unless the brewer can spin wonderous thing that the customer thinks they want).

Don't be afraid of sugars. For us they are much the easiest option. You'll have seen my work with Invert Sugars, and none of it requires hours boiling sugar solutions (Ragus don't in their efforts to create "Invert Sugars", so why would we?). If you don't like sugars, don't use them! Many brewers don't. "Shepherd Neame" were one major brewer that wouldn't be swayed back in the 19th C. ("AK!" by Ron Pattinson).

Careful choice of yeast and mashing temperatures, with sugar, will allow you to attain any FG you fancy. A 1937 "Burton" (Whitbread '33) I made for Xmas had 20% sugar, was mashed at a fairly high temperature (68°C) and fermented with a Dextrin averse yeast (WY1099) and came out fabulously malty (OG 1.062). I was using a "heritage" malt ("Plumage Archer", I keep the "Chevallier" malt for earlier recreations). I'd aimed for FG 1.018 but got FG 1.011 ... okay, I don't understand that! But aiming for a high finishing gravity using a dextrin averse yeast (one with a documented attenuation of about 70%) and perhaps a heritage malt always does me all right ... even if the FG is baffling at times.

 

[Pennine]

WE use corn sugar to dry things out. Perhaps they did? Corn sugar has been available to brewers since 19th Century (imported from the States). They also had access to Invert Sugars, unlike what we have access to (and I mean including Ragus Invert - there's no-one else left - but even they must approximate it as things have changed since Victorian times). (PS: Ragus Invert is 20% "corn sugar", aka dextrose, which I might use too 'cos I can't be bothered with all that un-necessary "inverting" palaver).

I do not doubt that it was originally done for cost and availability, but later the qualities of these ingredients were preferred by the drinking public so including them was worthwhile even when they appeared more costly. What the customer wants first, what the brewer wants to supply a reluctant second (unless the brewer can spin wonderous thing that the customer thinks they want).

Don't be afraid of sugars. For us they are much the easiest option. You'll have seen my work with Invert Sugars, and none of it requires hours boiling sugar solutions (Ragus don't in their efforts to create "Invert Sugars", so why would we?). If you don't like sugars, don't use them! Many brewers don't. "Shepard Neame" were one major brewer that wouldn't be swayed back in the 19th C. ("AK!" by Ron Pattinson).

Careful choice of yeast and mashing temperatures, with sugar, will allow you to attain any FG you fancy. A 1937 "Burton" (Whitbread '33) I made for Xmas had 20% sugar, was mashed at a fairly high temperature (68°C) and fermented with a Dextrin averse yeast (WY1099) and came out fabulously malty (OG 1.062). I was using a "heritage" malt ("Plumage Archer", I keep the "Chevallier" malt for earlier recreations). I'd aimed for FG 1.018 but got FG 1.011 ... okay, I don't understand that! But aiming for a high finishing gravity using a dextrin averse yeast (one with a documented attenuation of about 70%) and perhaps a heritage malt always does me all right ... even if the FG is baffling at times.

Thanks Peebee, you make a good point about mash temps and higher FG I will give that a try for the next batch and possibly add corn and invert. I'll also check out the Shepherd Neame recipes.

 

[Justin Dean]

I brew a short and shoddy mild a couple times a year

 

[Justin Dean]

https://share.brewfather.app/WJVJfd9sL6JC1v

 

[RoomWithABrew]

... and who invented the bcycle.

And the potato.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

@peebee I was wondering if you knew the answer to this, why do most of these historical recipes contain both inverted sugar and corn? I am assuming they are using corn to dry things out, but isn't that achieved by the invert to some extent?

My experience is that they tend to use one or the other, sugar tends to be more of a northern thing and maize more common in the south (but it's not a rigid rule). The main reason is not for flavour, but to dilute the higher protein content of malts made with old-style farming & malting practices, to ensure the beer is clear. Also talking to John Keeling a few years ago, apparently it was believed that maize helped finings to work, and he feels maize "opens out" the flavour a bit.

I want to make some of these historical recipes but am gunshy as my recent attempts with sugars have not been too my liking. Basically they are less malty than I expect. It's very likely I am doing something wrong too.

Well it's possible your expectations are misplaced, but remember that before WWI it was almost all Chevallier, which is a lot richer than modern malts.

 

[peebee]

Apologies @Pennine! As NB has (diplomatically) reminded me, you were talking "Corn" (maize) and it was me that added "sugar" (i.e. "Corn sugar", aka, these days, dextrose). I'm guilty of not automatically associating "corn" with "maize" (too old, too British?). Still, ignoring the "corn sugar" makes little difference to my post.

 

[patto1ro]

Thanks Peebee, you make a good point about mash temps and higher FG I will give that a try for the next batch and possibly add corn and invert. I'll also check out the Shepherd Neame recipes.

It's only Shepherd Neame's Pale Ales which were all malt. Their Mild contained No. 3 invert.

 

[Pennine]

My experience is that they tend to use one or the other, sugar tends to be more of a northern thing and maize more common in the south (but it's not a rigid rule). The main reason is not for flavour, but to dilute the higher protein content of malts made with old-style farming & malting practices, to ensure the beer is clear. Also talking to John Keeling a few years ago, apparently it was believed that maize helped finings to work, and he feels maize "opens out" the flavour a bit.

Well it's possible your expectations are misplaced, but remember that before WWI it was almost all Chevallier, which is a lot richer than modern malts.

You are likely correct it's an expectation issue. I have a sack of Chevallier and will give invert another shot soon.

 

[Pennine]

Apologies @Pennine! As NB has (diplomatically) reminded me, you were talking "Corn" (maize) and it was me that added "sugar" (i.e. "Corn sugar", aka, these days, dextrose). I'm guilty of not automatically associating "corn" with "maize" (too old, too British?). Still, ignoring the "corn sugar" makes little difference to my post.

No problem, I didn't correct you because I figured the response wouldn't have changed.

The idea of corn helping with clarifying posed by @Northern_Brewer is an interesting one.

 

[peebee]

Apologies again @Pennine! @patto1ro points out mild did contain sugar; although I did add a reference stating that comment about Shepherd Neame came from a Pale Ale book (my - lame - idea of an excuse).

Ah, the dangers of commenting on threads that have wandered miles off track (this one is supposed to be about modern mild!).

 

[Northern_Brewer]

mild did contain sugar

And they still do - invert #3 is the classic taste of West Midlands milds, even if NW milds tend to rely more on crystal and dark malts, and modern milds seem to be going more in that direction through a combination of CAMRA's antipathy to adjuncts and homebrewers not being able to get it readily.

 

[patto1ro]

My experience is that they tend to use one or the other, sugar tends to be more of a northern thing and maize more common in the south (but it's not a rigid rule). The main reason is not for flavour, but to dilute the higher protein content of malts made with old-style farming & malting practices, to ensure the beer is clear. Also talking to John Keeling a few years ago, apparently it was believed that maize helped finings to work, and he feels maize "opens out" the flavour a bit.

Well it's possible your expectations are misplaced, but remember that before WWI it was almost all Chevallier, which is a lot richer than modern malts.

Most brewers used both sugar and adjuncts, usually maize. A few brewers - like Whitbread - didn't use adjuncts, but did use sugar. The use of sugar was almost universal. Even the few which brewed all malt were likely to use caramel for colour adjustment and sugar primings for their cask beer.

 

[peebee]

A piccie! ...

Okay, cr&p piccie but it shows what I want. This isn't even a "mild", let alone a "modern mild". It's a "Burton" (like "mild" it also has a history going back to 17th C. ... but "mild ale" could be argued to have a history going back much further). "Whitbread '33" to a recipe gleaned from Ron Pattinson's output (Ron is @patto1ro's doppelganger, or visa-versa). Not particularly dark? It does contain caramel colouring (not enough?), some crystal malt [EDIT: Pah! wasn't crystal, t'was chocolate ... I do tell some whoppers], and also 20% No.3 Invert Sugar"!

Basically, this picture is stressing "don't rely on No.3 Invert Sugar (Ragus) for a dark mild". I've a couple of "Milds" lined up from Ron Pattinson's publishings: "1914 Courage X Ale" from his Blog site (it is not in the "Mild!" book) and "1915 Noakes X" from the "Mild!" book. Both not "modern", but both on the threshold of WWI before the gravities slumped to the 1.030 mark ... and both containing "black malt" (rare!) so there's a chance of something truly "dark"?

 

[Les Howarth]

OK the thread title is a bit of a hook! In fact the disappearance of modern milds began with the commercial breweries when they decided to partygyle them from their light ales or bitters. Even in what was one of the last remaining dark mild strongholds, the west Midlands, Batham's does not produce a genuine mild. I cut my drinking teeth in the late 70s/early 80s on the Ansell's mild then brewed at the famous Aston Cross brewery in Birmingham. It was creamy and nutty and one could easily sink 7 or 8 pints and then drift into Archer's fish and chip shop just round the corner where they cooked in beef dripping. Bliss. Ansell's ruined it by partygyling when they moved their brewing to Burton. However as a jazz musician familiar with the concepts of busking and improvisation, when it comes to home-brewed modern mild I simply make it all up on the hoof. It's really very easy. I like to use Mild Ale Malt when I can get it because it does add a lusciousness to the flavour being kilned at a slightly higher temperature than your vin ordinare pale; you also need to use a little more to get the same extract for that reason. Black malt and roasted barley (crushed) are what separate the fake from the real, but one should not go OTT; I recall a recipe in a very old CJJ Berry book which called for using 1lb of each in 5 galls. I tend to hover around the 5-8oz per 5 gall mark (of each) and I also add 12oz demerara sugar in the copper. Don't waste expensive hops on this style; I use Fuggles or Goldings. No need for high alpha types. It's a great busker! It never fails and is great for those hot summer days (few though they are). I up the ante a bit for a (modern) stout using pale malt (no mild, it's a waste) a little on the higher side with the black and roasted barley and like to use Northern Brewer hops exclusively. I might also add half a pound of flaked barley too. Why not try it yourself?

I brew mild and it is great for getting a large volume of beer quickly. I mash in double the amount of malt required (so if the final OG is 1030, I aim for 1060), sparge, boil add hops etc. and then split the extract in two, top up each batch with water and pitch yeast. You get twice as much beer for the same amount of effort! For a bit of variety you can use different top up waters and/or different yeasts. I did the former once and topped half up with RO water and the other half with my crappy (at the time) tap water. The RO water batch was cleaner than that tap water batch, but the latter had extra complexity from the salts in the tap water. Because of the low ABV and low hop rate these beers are typically ready for drinking in 8-10 days. It is great beer for drinking without your wife realising that you've been drinking. ;-)

Cheers,

Les

 

[user 43495]

I brew mild and it is great for getting a large volume of beer quickly. I mash in double the amount of malt required (so if the final OG is 1030, I aim for 1060), sparge, boil add hops etc. and then split the extract in two, top up each batch with water and pitch yeast. You get twice as much beer for the same amount of effort! For a bit of variety you can use different top up waters and/or different yeasts. I did the former once and topped half up with RO water and the other half with my crappy (at the time) tap water. The RO water batch was cleaner than that tap water batch, but the latter had extra complexity from the salts in the tap water. Because of the low ABV and low hop rate these beers are typically ready for drinking in 8-10 days. It is great beer for drinking without your wife realising that you've been drinking. ;-)

Cheers,

Les

Hi Les, Yes I agree the modern mild style can often be pushed out for drinking after just 10 days. Many years ago I and some friends organised a home brew beer festival in my garden. It was incredibly hot as many summers were back in the 1990s and one of the beers failed. Hurriedly I decided to do another modern mild with just 10 days to go and it worked a treat. These days i have a very old house with a cellar which is perfect. I used to double up but now have a brew length of 10 galls so that works well for me. Have you tried using Northern Brewer hops in your milds/stouts? It seems to be a largely ignored hop these days which i think is a great shame. Paul

 

[Clarence]

A brewing colleague taught me to love mild and I've never looked back. Haven't time to read the 7 pages of this thread so I'm not sure what "modern" mild is unless it's the dark (usually) low-hopped and relatively low abv that was well-known among the flat-capped brigade of the middle of the last century. I don't use sugar or adjuncts and, a good mild is easy to make and the most refreshing of beers. It can even be served cold (not chilled). I've always got a mild in stock these days.

 

[MrRook]

Three U S gallons

Change of recipes and timing.