Sunday, 18 May 2008

Let's Brew Mild!

I always deliver on my promises. I told you I'd be posting some Mild recipes. Here they are:

Whitbread 1881 XXX:


Barclay Perkins 1925 X:


Whitbread 1940 XX:


Barclay Perkins 1941 X:


I haven't got time to extract the details. There's a beer festival to go to. PINT's Meibokfestival. If I don't drink too much (ha, ha, ha) I may do that later. Up until then, you're on your own. One small tip - the gravity in the 1881 Whiybread log is given in brewer's pounds.

8 comments:

Kristen England said...

Thanks Patto!

I like the whitbreads logs better that the rest and the 'flourishy' handwriting sometimes makes things a pain! ;)

Matt said...

I can read hieroglyphics easier than most of those log.

Seeing the logs makes me appreciate the service you provide us all the more and it also confirms your mad. I suppose it starts to make sense after a bit but right now it is gibberish to me.

Ron Pattinson said...

Matt, they aren't as difficult as they look. I've been short of time the last couple of days. Hopefully I'll have enough time tomorrow to post explaining what the different bits of the logs mean. The bits I understand.

I think Kristen has got the hang of them. I'll have to pull out some of the 100% handwritten Whitbread logs to give him more of a challenge.

Kristen England said...

Yeah, its not the actual log that gives me the trouble. Each log has a different manner. The brewer who writes in the log is the one who makes it easy or hard to decipher. In the barclay perkins logs there are a ton of insider jargon as there really isnt that much in the Whitbread. The units and blending are quite straight foward. Its a lot of the ingredients that give me grief. 16 cwt of Gartons #3 invert sugar, no problem. What the hell is 5 56/112 cwt of hay? I get the volume and am guessing that it isnt actual hay but some sort of sugar.

Most of the old malts are easy enough to understand (n.x.o.b.?) but nearly all of them arent produced anymore. We still can get various versions of different pale, mild, brown, amber and crystal malts.

Oblivious said...

If you interested [url=http://www.http://www.durdenparkbeer.org.uk/beer.org.uk]Durden Park Beer Circle[/url]have may years researching old recipes and translating are very interesting read for anyone trying to brew them or just curious about old beers

Oblivious

Kristen England said...

Ive been to the Durden Park site. Im not a big fan of other people 'translating' logs for me. Not that you guys don't have a ton of experience but from all the logs I've ever seen there are ingredients that can be translated in numerous ways. I like to see the original logs so I can make my own judgment. Tons of recipes Ive seen translated lump mild malt in with pale malt. Lots of them like to lump in the 90 and 60 min hop addition. Its worse when recipes leave out original technique like decoction, gyle or blending.

That being said, I do send a lot of my mates to your site that just want to brew an old UK recipe. Everything they made has been good. Please don't take this as a slight against you guys, I just prefer to see things for myself. That way I learn.

Ron Pattinson said...

Kristen,

what is "5 56/112 cwt of hay"? The amount of sugar is always given in hundredweights. A hundredweight being 112 pounds. SO what it says is 5.6 hundredweights of sugar. Hay will be the manufacturer. As no number is given, I guess it's No. 1 or No. 2, i.e. sugar without colour.

Kristen England said...

Yup, got the amount, it was the 'hay' that I wanted straightened out. Its interesting that they add the #3 and #1 in differing quantities to the different boils. Pretty neat. I haven't been able to find the abbreviation 'M.A.' or 'B.S.' for malt. B.A. is pale malt, S.A. is mild malt. 1940 is too early for anything like Maris - Archer and Bloody Sweet doesn't make sense for B.S. no matter how good it is ;)