Terry Foster Porter Recipe

[Lesinge]

Your comments don't match with my post you quoted! Certainly confused me!

But: By the Victorian era they were using indirect heat to kiln malt (traditional brown malt used direct heat) so you would have been on the right track using modern brown malt (mixed with pale, black and perhaps amber malts). MO malt wouldn't have been available (until 1960s) but it's precursors would have been, and we can't get them so MO is fine. Chevallier barley is quite different from MO and its precursors, and accounted for most of the barley malted in Victorian times and would be a fine choice (I'm a recent convert to Chevallier, and prefer it many times over to MO).

It was your symmetry line - I wasn't thinking in terms of balance I think I was assuming as someone did the recipe then 1 third of each would have enough conversion - once I opened my eyes/mind I realised that 2 of these bring flavour/sweetness etc but no conversion, if that makes sense. Looking forward to doing the Chevallier and doing it against MO as it is the "best" modern malt available to see the comparison. I understand though it has been tweaked to be shorter like modern barley? This will make it less prone to flattening in windy conditions. I have also used the Imperial Malt but with a current lake of knowledge of Amber and Brown don't know how close to flavours I will get so I have just upped the Pale to make it more sensible. Will do a Imperial v Amber at some stage to see the difference.

 

[peebee]

It was your symmetry line …

Ah, I get it. That was taking a shot at the OP which opened the discussion about 1/3 / 1/3 / 1/3 formulation. And I wasn't knocking the probable lack of enzyme (which it might well be lacking) but the lack of balance in roasted malts and the powerful flavours they wield.

I know you picked up on "brown malt" once being diastatic. And early 19th century recipes might well have gotten away with a 1/3 / 1/3 / 1/3 formulation, but "diastatic" brown malt (and diastatic amber) were very different: The overall colour might of been brown, but the technique of making it meant the grains were subjected to a wide range of temperatures, so a good portion of the grain would be "pale" and diastatic whereas some of the grain was black! Because it was heated from damp, some will have "stewed" in parts of the grain-bed where the temperature was right creating crystal/caramel elements (and some would "explode" or pop in the heat).

There appears to have been some "negative" reaction to pale malts being introduced, because the Porter would have lost the distinctive colour and flavour. But the new ways of roasting malts (rotating drums) meant more uniformly coloured malt was created, including black malt, so the colour and some flavours could be put back in. The instructions to make brown and amber malts that @foxy posted earlier (from the Durden Park Beer Club's book) would have been to make these "uniform" non-diastatic malts and not the diastatic coloured malts of earlier history (in 1975 when that book was published the home-brew market never had brown malt, amber malt, liquid yeast, and a whole lot of other things).

I never knew that about them "shortening" Chevallier barley, hopefully not by "genetic modification"! I did know Chevallier used to be a tall crop - I would have enjoyed that when playing in the barley crop as a kid!

My own experimenting with Imperial Malt has gone badly wrong because I was also testing the DRC malt too. Something taste good (probably Simpson's DRC) but I don't know what. Which is why you don't change two things at the same time. I know this, but do I take any notice?


I've gone off on one again haven't I?

 

[peebee]

I might have "gone off on one", but I haven't finished yet!

Imperial Malt: Colour-wise it sits between light and dark "Munich Malt". But in this "Amber/Munich Malt" area the maltsters can make dramatic flavour and colour changes by messing about with moisture content and timings, and "things" (?). Continental maltsters have perhaps been doing this mucking about a bit longer, hence you get "Aromatic" malt, "Melanoidin" malt, and more recently "Red-X", all crammed into the same "Amber" colour region.

So I've been saying Imperial is like an amber and pale amber, but actually that is me guessing! Perhaps it's like a Melanoidin Malt or …

Hang-on. It's that guy in the white coat again. I think it's time for me to be locked in me room for the night …

 

[Lesinge]

Ah, I get it. That was taking a shot at the OP which opened the discussion about 1/3 / 1/3 / 1/3 formulation. And I wasn't knocking the probable lack of enzyme (which it might well be lacking) but the lack of balance in roasted malts and the powerful flavours they wield.

I know you picked up on "brown malt" once being diastatic. And early 19th century recipes might well have gotten away with a 1/3 / 1/3 / 1/3 formulation, but "diastatic" brown malt (and diastatic amber) were very different: The overall colour might of been brown, but the technique of making it meant the grains were subjected to a wide range of temperatures, so a good portion of the grain would be "pale" and diastatic whereas some of the grain was black! Because it was heated from damp, some will have "stewed" in parts of the grain-bed where the temperature was right creating crystal/caramel elements (and some would "explode" or pop in the heat).

There appears to have been some "negative" reaction to pale malts being introduced, because the Porter would have lost the distinctive colour and flavour. But the new ways of roasting malts (rotating drums) meant more uniformly coloured malt was created, including black malt, so the colour and some flavours could be put back in. The instructions to make brown and amber malts that @foxy posted earlier (from the Durden Park Beer Club's book) would have been to make these "uniform" non-diastatic malts and not the diastatic coloured malts of earlier history (in 1975 when that book was published the home-brew market never had brown malt, amber malt, liquid yeast, and a whole lot of other things).

I never knew that about them "shortening" Chevallier barley, hopefully not by "genetic modification"! I did know Chevallier used to be a tall crop - I would have enjoyed that when playing in the barley crop as a kid!

My own experimenting with Imperial Malt has gone badly wrong because I was also testing the DRC malt too. Something taste good (probably Simpson's DRC) but I don't know what. Which is why you don't change two things at the same time. I know this, but do I take any notice?


I've gone off on one again haven't I?

"My own experimenting with Imperial Malt has gone badly wrong because I was also testing the DRC malt too. Something taste good (probably Simpson's DRC) but I don't know what. Which is why you don't change two things at the same time. I know this, but do I take any notice? "

I like DRC - it brings a real dried fruits character to a beer and have also tried Imperial Malt but can't remember how much that brought to the Christmas beer I made - also used Topaz hops in that one to bring out the Christmas pudding feel. I agree - only change one thing at a time or you have no clue what is happening! Thanks for the other info.

 

[Lesinge]

I might have "gone off on one", but I haven't finished yet!

Imperial Malt: Colour-wise it sits between light and dark "Munich Malt". But in this "Amber/Munich Malt" area the maltsters can make dramatic flavour and colour changes by messing about with moisture content and timings, and "things" (?). Continental maltsters have perhaps been doing this mucking about a bit longer, hence you get "Aromatic" malt, "Melanoidin" malt, and more recently "Red-X", all crammed into the same "Amber" colour region.

So I've been saying Imperial is like an amber and pale amber, but actually that is me guessing! Perhaps it's like a Melanoidin Malt or …

Hang-on. It's that guy in the white coat again. I think it's time for me to be locked in me room for the night …

I did an experiment - three beers one with DRC, one with Melanoidin and one with Aromatic - I liked the Aromatic the least - it had a harsh edge in the beer I made compared to the other two.

 

[An Ankoù]

It is very similar but not identical... The version in the edition I have is:

5 gallon / 19L All Grain
3.75 lbs. (1.7 kg) 2-row pale malt (3°L)
3.75 lbs. (1.7 kg) Crisp amber malt (29°L)
3.75 lbs. (1.7 kg) Crisp brown malt (65 °L)
8.5 AAU East Kent Goldings hops (bittering) (1.5oz./43g of 6
5% AA)
Wyeast 1098 (British Ale) yeast or White Labs 006 Bedford

OG 1052
FG 1016
ABV 4.6%
IBU 28

I don't think you'll have any difficulty reaching your target OG with those quantities. I think you'll overshoot it.

 

[Dellboy78lfc]

Oh no! I’ve literally just finished reading this book
What did you find bad about it? The history side of things, or are the recipes crap? Or both?!

 

[An Ankoù]

I have perhaps been a bit mean to Terry Foster's book. I dug my copy out to judge why I had such a negative opinion of it.

It was published way back in 1992 (when I would have still believed "porter" was lost forever, and stout was an entirely different beer) and it was for an American audience who hadn't by that time built their dominant influence on the UK (World?) home-brew scene. So he won't have had the more recent influences of Porter history "stars" like Ron Pattinson and Martyn Cornell and any useful snippets they had dug up. And none of his recipes pap on about "six-row barley" of "Munich Malt" like I thought they did (none have chocolate, coffee or raspberries in either!).

So, for my slur aimed at Terry Foster, I apologise.




I do despise the current American dominance of the UK home-brew scene. But the UK scene did need the kick up the pants to get us out of a long slumber.

EDIT: Hang on! I've picked up the wrong book! "Porter and Stouts", published 2014. THAT'S what I was remembering! Utter trite! I take back my apology!

I found an electronic copy online which I went to the trouble of printing off. Haven't read all of it. In fact I'd forgotten about it. Had another look through the recipes and I wasn't impressed to say the least. Let's Brew or Durden Park inspire infinitely more confidence.
I'm not all that taken in by the historic style, either. It seems to have been foisted on a thirsty public by the economics and commercial aspirations of the day, much like Watneys Red Barrel. Its rapid disappearance speaks volumes.

 

[An Ankoù]

MO as it is the "best" modern malt available

Is it now? This seems to be the received wisdom of the day, but isn't MO a heritage barley that is enjoying a resurgence? It's horses for courses and while I'd want MO for Summer Lightning, It'd be among my last choices for, say, Landlord. Golden Promise has the edge on MO in my opinion, but it depends on the beer. If I'm making a rich dark beer, I don't think the qualities of a single strain of barley would be obvious and I think I'd use something like Crisps best ale malt or Hookhead which is are both fine malts anyway. I suspect Chevallier might become "fashionable" in the same way that MO has.

 

[NormanHurst]

Is it now? This seems to be the received wisdom of the day, but isn't MO a heritage barley that is enjoying a resurgence? It's horses for courses and while I'd want MO for Summer Lightning, It'd be among my last choices for, say, Landlord. Golden Promise has the edge on MO in my opinion, but it depends on the beer. If I'm making a rich dark beer, I don't think the qualities of a single strain of barley would be obvious and I think I'd use something like Crisps best ale malt or Hookhead which is are both fine malts anyway. I suspect Chevallier might become "fashionable" in the same way that MO has.

Depends on your definition of heritage. MO was introduced in 1966. Although it did fall out of favour in the 80s and had to be revived in terms of plantings. Interestingly or not, the Maris name is taken from a street name at the old Plant Breeding Institute in Trumpington. Maris Lane also gave its name to Maris Piper spuds amongst other cultivars.

 

[peebee]

Oh no! I’ve literally just finished reading this book
What did you find bad about it? The history side of things, or are the recipes crap? Or both?!

As a book with "modern" recipes (i.e. "craft beer" "porter" recipes) it's fine. But that isn't how it presents itself!

His first book for the series was a reasonable attempt to put over the history of porter and its recipes roughly followed the introduction (although the limited ingredients of the time no doubt made that a necessity). The second book (2014) spends the first 1/4 summarising the history in the first. And in fairness does name that chapter "How it all began … and nearly ended", but then dives immediately into the "modern" craft beer (and BJCP) view of "porter". So despite the explanations, it is easy to overlook that and not realise the book is now talking about an entirely different "beer"! The only resemblance of the two being that they are both dark in colour.

The remaining 3/4 contains the usual assortment of foul-ups (like including some of the lowest attenuating yeasts I know of as suitable for "dry" stout). There's a lot of rubbish ideas that relates to the "craft beer" recipes, but that's personal preference. The main gripe is you're left thinking the book still talking about something that has some sort of "historic" connection yet it has nothing of the sort.



Having slagged off the book, let me just turn the "slagging off" towards me:

Hang on! I've picked up the wrong book! "Porter and Stouts", published 2014. THAT'S what I was remembering! Utter trite! I take back my apology!

Seems I'm mixing up my words. When I used "Trite" I was avoiding ruder words referring to a large pile of faecal matter. "Trite" actually has an unintended less negative meaning.

 

[An Ankoù]

As a book with "modern" recipes (i.e. "craft beer" "porter" recipes) it's fine. But that isn't how it presents itself!

His first book for the series was a reasonable attempt to put over the history of porter and its recipes roughly followed the introduction (although the limited ingredients of the time no doubt made that a necessity). The second book (2014) spends the first 1/4 summarising the history in the first. And in fairness does name that chapter "How it all began … and nearly ended", but then dives immediately into the "modern" craft beer (and BJCP) view of "porter". So despite the explanations, it is easy to overlook that and not realise the book is now talking about an entirely different "beer"! The only resemblance of the two being that they are both dark in colour.

The remaining 3/4 contains the usual assortment of foul-ups (like including some of the lowest attenuating yeasts I know of as suitable for "dry" stout). There's a lot of rubbish ideas that relates to the "craft beer" recipes, but that's personal preference. The main gripe is you're left thinking the book still talking about something that has some sort of "historic" connection yet it has nothing of the sort.



Having slagged off the book, let me just turn the "slagging off" towards me:

Seems I'm mixing up my words. When I used "Trite" I was avoiding ruder words referring to a large pile of faecal matter. "Trite" actually has an unintended less negative meaning.

You weren't impressed then?

 

[Lesinge]

Depends on your definition of heritage. MO was introduced in 1966. Although it did fall out of favour in the 80s and had to be revived in terms of plantings. Interestingly or not, the Maris name is taken from a street name at the old Plant Breeding Institute in Trumpington. Maris Lane also gave its name to Maris Piper spuds amongst other cultivars.

Maris Piper in my opinion are the best potatoes for Roast apart from the top of the range Tesco ones (can't remember what they call that range). King Edwards, the ones I grew up with, seem to be half black inside (haven't looked up what that is about) and the other types are ok but not up to MP quality of taste - however, just lately the MP have been suffering from blackness inside (from Aldi) so we have switched to just the common white potato which isn't as nice but means I don't have to cut loads away.

 

[Lesinge]

Is it now? This seems to be the received wisdom of the day, but isn't MO a heritage barley that is enjoying a resurgence? It's horses for courses and while I'd want MO for Summer Lightning, It'd be among my last choices for, say, Landlord. Golden Promise has the edge on MO in my opinion, but it depends on the beer. If I'm making a rich dark beer, I don't think the qualities of a single strain of barley would be obvious and I think I'd use something like Crisps best ale malt or Hookhead which is are both fine malts anyway. I suspect Chevallier might become "fashionable" in the same way that MO has.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek with MO - although I love its malty flavours. In other beers I use all the other malts depending on the style. I do like GP but sometimes that is more expensive than MO. Used to get my Hook malts but the delivery charge is per box whilst some of the others are either free over a certain amount or done as one charge.