It's a while since we did a Truman's beer. To be truthful, I've not quite got around to looking at the 1890 Truman logs properly. Just having quickly glanced at one, I can remember why. There's some confusing stuff in there. In particular, some weird party-gyling come blending. If I'd been able to understand it, you'd have had a nice Imperial Stout recipe here.
Export Stout was the only Truman Porter that contained no sugar. The various Runners and Stouts had 20-25% sugar in their grist.
Oh yes, almost forgot. The original had a very long boil. 2.75 hours for the first wort, 4 hours for the second. Must have had a Scottish brewer.
That's about it from me. Best had you over to Kristen . . . . . . .
Truman - 1890 - Export Stout | |||||||||
General info: Tropical breeze. Palm trees. Keelhauling. Kokostitte. I turn you back to the good old days of boat wenches, swashbuckling and ass kicking. Not necessarily in that order. In my mind, this beer is the epitome of a dry | |||||||||
Beer Specifics | Recipe by percentages | ||||||||
Gravity (OG) | 1.075 | 77% English pale | |||||||
Gravity (FG) | 1.015 | 13.8% Brown malt | |||||||
ABV | 8.00% | 9.2% Black malt | |||||||
Apparent attenuation | 80.00% | ||||||||
Real attenuation | 65.54% | ||||||||
IBU | 100.0 | Mash | 90min@156°F | 0.98qt/lb | |||||
SRM | 103.0 | 90min@68.9°C | 2.05L/kg | ||||||
EBC | 274.2 | ||||||||
Boil | 180 minutes | ||||||||
Homebrew @ 70% | Craft @ 80% | ||||||||
Grist | 5gal | 19L | 10bbl | 10hl | |||||
English pale | 11.37 | lb | 5.176 | kg | 616.78 | lb | 238.30 | kg | |
Brown malt | 2.04 | lb | 0.929 | kg | 110.77 | lb | 42.80 | kg | |
Black malt | 1.36 | lb | 0.619 | kg | 73.64 | lb | 28.45 | kg | |
801.19 | |||||||||
Hops | |||||||||
Fuggles 4.5% 120min | 4.64 | oz | 131.5 | g | 287.6 | oz | 6.949 | kg | |
Fuggles 4.5% 30min | 1.38 | oz | 39.1 | g | 85.4 | oz | 2.063 | kg | |
Fuggles 4.5% dry hop | 1.16 | oz | 32.9 | g | 72.0 | oz | 1.740 | kg | |
Fermentation | 68°F /20°C | ||||||||
Yeast | |||||||||
WLP002 English Ale Yeast | |||||||||
Wyeast 1968 | |||||||||
Tasting Notes: Tons of dark fruit. Rich cocoa and rummed raisins. Treacle, dates and sultanas. Dark roasted espresso. Assertive herbal bitter with a near quinine tonic-like character. A massive drying accentuates the hop flavours and resins. The finish is like a very strong espresso with a hand full of winey fruits and a good dose of alcohol completely reminiscent of caffè correctto. | |||||||||
Posts
19 comments:
Looks like an interesting recipe with that amount of Black malt. Is there any reason why fullers yeast was chosen.
A very interesting and impressive beer.
I have a question about the brown malt. Where was this obtained, or was it home prepared?
Also, did you ever try to brew a beer only from that material? If so, what was it like? Does any commercial beer you have made resemble any such attempt? I think you said once Kristen that you once attempted a recreation of stitch - strong brown ale.
Gary
I meant, if you brewed an all-brown malt beer, did it resemble any commercial (craft or other) porter or stout? I am trying to figure out how different the pre-patent malt porters were to what came after.
Gary
Gary, an all brown malt beer is unlike any commercial beer I've had. Then again, modern brown malt isn't the same as 18th century brown malt.
Porter has gone through several incarnations, each with its own particular character.
Modern brown malt is easily available, but it is not the same as historic, according to the Durden Park folks. Modern brown is non-diastatic (I did a small test batch to confirm this) as it is browned throughout. Historic was kilned at a higher temperature for a short time, so the exterior was quite dark but the interior not so much, protecting sufficient enzymes for it to convert itself.
The Durden Park booklet has instructions for making diastatic brown malt from pale malt. I haven't done it yet, although I've made pale amber, which made a wonderful beer.
Thanks for all that and I am reminded that I suggested earlier that a blistering would leave intact part of the starchy mass with associated enzymes.
It would seem relatively easy to duplicate the old brown malt. Jeff, why don't you try this? Perhaps over a hot charcoal and wood fire?
Gary
Ron/Kristen
When/how was the dry hopping carried out?
Interesting recipe. Another porter/stout to add to the list,
Oblivious,
Fullers yeast is a good overall yeast. Choose any that you like however be sure to choose one that has a decent attenuation. The key is the dry finish.
Gary,
Yes, stitch. Very very different than what I thought going in. Thats what I get for believing all the current brewing books. It was not harsh in the least. A wonderful coffee, toast character, touch of cocoa which has now developed a great rum raisin.
As Ron says, Ive brewed proters from the early 1800s through the 1960s. All of which are 'traditional' all of which are very different.
As to historic brown malt, I've made it. Its quite simple. I have found really no difference between the two in practical use. Meaning the old and the new. There are sufficient enzymes in the mash, even in traditional recipes, that the enzymatic aspect of this malt really didn't come into play very much. I do think this is a pretty crappy way of making brown malt. I'm going to try it again but this time using coal and then oak. Then compare. I dont think the oak thing will add nearly as much as people think b/c the malt isn't wet. The coal is what Im really interested in. B/c of all the oils it should really show through giving that 'empyretic' flavor we've talked about before.
From all the logs it was usually cask hopping.
Why have you listed Nottingham as a yeast option? Nottingham has a very high attenuation and doesn't afford a lot of esters. The other yeasts you have listed (the Fuller's strain) has low attenuation and a moderate amount of esters. If you were after a dry yeast option Windsor Ale or S04 would have been better?
Tim,
You are correct. An oversight on my part. The dry should be the Windsor yeast. Thanks for paying attention. :)
For those not serving these beers on cask, what is the suggested range of carbonation in volumes of C02? Like 1.5 to 2.0? 2.5?
Should I assume that all of these recipes should be carbonated to the same amount? Should a post WW2 IPA have the same carbonation level as an 1850s XXXX Ale?
Cask conditioned beer usually has less carbonation than bottled or kegged beer. I would assume that the carbonation would be similar in most UK casks from the mid 1800s to the present day. It would definitely vary by brewery and beer type but I think staying right around 2.1-2.2 would be sufficient.
I would suggest people that are kegging or bottle conditioning go right around 2.5 vol as thats not to much nor to little.
On a whole, I would stick to these suggestions. Then after you've made a few change whatever you like. Some people like really fizzy stuff, some like very litter carbonation.
Also do remember the presence of carbonation can be masked by the viscosity of the beer. To your point a KKKK and a weak IPA carbonated to the same level will have a different feel. The KKKK will seem much less carbonated b/c of the thickness of it.
Lots of things to take into consideration but most importantly don't lose the forest for the trees. The difference in volume from 2.1-2.5 is miniscule compared to the fact that you changed the entire grist, yeast and fermentation temperature. Right?
Make sure the other things are right and then really worry about the degree of carbonation.
Adrian, drinkers expected Porter and Stout to be effervescent and have a good, lasting head. So they would be at the top end of cask CO2 levels.
In this case, I suspect the original beer would have been bottled. Exported in a cask and then bottled at the destination.
I'm sure I've got some German analyses of bottled beer that give the CO2 content. And have some British beers. Now where the hell did I put them?
Got them. I'll post them.
"Old British Beers and How To Make Them"
Do you know his book? I so, is it any good?
I was excited when I first got the book which turned to frustration quickly. The first part is ok. The recipes are thoroughly and massively general with nearly no details whatsoever. A lot of it is just plain wrong.
I brewed this in Dec this year. Scored 38 points at the NHC in Ireland in Cat 23. For me the beer was too bitter & far too roasty. It finished at 1.020 so Im glad it didnt go lower. It was all fuggles on the nose & all espresso on the finish. it was a good beer but could be much better. Im going to brew again next week & cut the IBUs down to 70 & cut the black malt down to 3% & sub in some crystal & chocolate to make up the grist. Cheers for the recipe & blog.
I need to make this.
This is a beer that must be made.
I ran away 2 weeks ago when I saw the amount of black patent and brewed this instead:
12.5 lb. British pale ale malt (3 °L)
0.75 lb. British black roasted barley (600 °L)
2 oz. British black patent malt (600 L)
10 oz. British Light crystal malt (10°L)
10 oz. British Dark crystal malt (90 °L)
0.5 lb. German chocolate malt (400 °L)
12 AAU Kent Goldings hops (60 min.) (3 oz/68 g at 5.1.% alpha acids)
Wyeast Irish Ale (1084)
OG 1080
Its Zainishef's, with some patent.
Hi all,
I'm a bit late to the party, but has anyone brewed this with a successful outcome and let me know whether you added all that black malt straight from the beginning of the mash, or rather at the end to avoid extracting harsh notes?
Thanks for your help!
Post a Comment