Looks good I'll have a go.This one is excellent.
https://scottishcraftbrewers.org/?p=1968
It is, I’ve a keg that’s been maturing.Looks good I'll have a go.
I have had a beer made with it and it was very good. it was however made by someone who knew what they were doing.Peated malt tastes *rank* in beers. Rauchmalt seems to be the way to go if you want smokiness. Not that it's expected in this style.
I have had a beer made with it and it was very good. it was however made by someone who knew what they were doing.
Yes, I think they were a frequent award winner with their home-brew and may have gone commercial.Good for them, that'll have taken some work and fine tuning.
I've used a similar argument for Porter. Some will suggest Porter never had a smoky twang because the maltsters were too proud to make smoky malt which people didn't like, so used hornbeam faggots for kilning and drying that have very little smokiness. (Actually, I later find out hornbeam was common around London back then).Another example is here, from a book published in 1822 in London but containing letters written in the 1720s ascribed to Edward Burt. He says plain as day that Scottish common ale was smoky from use of peat, turf, or furze to prepare the malt. The way he writes, it is clear that by then English ale did not have the taste – he notes the Scottish taste as something unusual and acquired due to custom.
Enter your email address to join: