Tetley cask Mild specifications (part one)

I'm plodding my way through these Tetley specifications. And now I've hit my favourite: Tetley's Mild. A beer I drank huge quantities of in the 1970s and early 1980s, I was living in Leeds. What else was I supposed to do.

It's sad going back to Leeds now. Nowhere sells the Mild. Not many pubs even sell the Bitter. Tetley used to completely dominate the city's pubs. When I lived there, it seemed as if their grip was unbreakable. Even when they swapped some pubs with Bass Charrington. 

I suppose it did last around 60 years. From when they gobbled up local rival Melbourne to the brewery's closure in 2011. Not a bad run, I suppose. I probably experienced the brewery at its height. When its beers were popular and good.

That's enough nostalgia for the heady days of the 1970s. (Many seem so nostalgic for that period, that they're trying to recreate it today. The empty shelves in the supermarkets. Endless strikes. Happy days.)

Let's crack on with the beer.

Tetley cask Mild specifications
O.G. (in package)	1032.0 +- 1.0.
PG (in package)	1007.0 - 1008.0
Apparent atten (%)	75
Limit atten	1004 +- 1.0
Alcohol (v/v)	3.15 +- 0.17
(w/v)	2.51 +- 0.14
Colour (EBC)	56 +- 3
Bitterness (EBU)	24 +- 2.5
Haze (EBC/°F)	Polished (Fined)
PH	4.2 +- 0.1
Head Retention (secs)	> 100
SO2 (ppm)	¬> 20
Cu (ppm)	¬> 0.2
Fe (ppm)	¬> 0.4
Yeast Count (10^6 cells/ml)	0.5 +- 0.4
Microbiological	Absence of beer spoilage organisms
Packaged in Cask	9:18:36 galls.
Storage
Shelf Life (weeks)	4
At Brewery (days)	5 (prior to trunking)
or Depot	14 days max.
Recommended age at point of sale (weeks)	¬> 3
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 6.

That sounds very much like the beer I drank. Fairly light, both in colour and body. It wasn't a really dark Mild. But dark enough to be easily distinguishable from Bitter.

I didn't know anything about bitterness units and would have had no idea how many the beer had. Not particularly bitter is what I thought. And less bitter than the Mild. Such simple times, back then.

Coolers and coolships

There's a brilliant article on coolers (what mot people call coolships nowadays) and their uses by my good friend Martha. Extremely informative and well-researched by someone who, unlike me, is a proper scientist.

Cooling is, like everything beer-related, way more complicated than it at first appears. Both in terms of the equipment used and the processes performed with them. The article taught me lots of things I hadn't realised that I needed to know. If you get what I mean. I need to review the section on cooling in "Free!".

Do take a look. I love the mixture of personal and technical. The theoretical and practical. One of the best long articles I've read in ages.

https://beerofsmod.co.uk/blogs/news/the-koelship-a-flat-cooler-for-all-occasions 

1940 Barclay Perkins IPA (bottling)

Yes, yet another IPA recipe. Another London IPA recipe. And one which doesn't nicely into any modern IPA category. Other than my own "watery English IPA" definition.

IPA highlights the inconsistency in strength reductions at Barclay Perkins. Here the fall is 5º, proportionally far greater than for the two versions of XLK.

My biggest question is what was the point of this beer? It differs only minimally from XLK (bottling). It’s strange that they should continue to brew both. Especially as they seemed to fill exactly the same style spot: Light Ale.

The grist is identical to that of XLK. About the only difference in the recipe is that the hopping rate is slightly lower, at 7 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt opposed to 7.5 lbs. Though, as IPA was sometimes brewed in a parti-gyle with XLK, even this wasn’t always the case.

Mid-Kent Fuggles and Mid-Kent Goldings both from the 1939 harvest and kept in a cold store, plus a small quantity of something described as “CP” from the 1940 harvest. 

1940 Barclay Perkins IPA (bottling)
pale malt	6.25 lb	78.81%
flaked rice	0.67 lb	8.45%
No. 3 invert sugar	1.00 lb	12.61%
caramel 1000 SRM	0.01 lb	0.13%
Fuggles 120 mins	0.75 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	0.75 oz
Goldings 30 mins	0.50 oz
OG	1039
FG	1011.5
ABV	3.64
Apparent attenuation	70.51%
IBU	28
SRM	10
Mash at	143º F
After underlet	154º F
Sparge at	172º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread ale

Tetley cask Bitter specifications (part seven)

If all has gone well, I should be on plane jetting back to Europe. Do I feel guilty about all my air travel? No. Because I've never owned a car. Other than flights, all my travel is my electric-proered vehicles. Or on foot.

We've got to the end of the Tetley's Bitter specification. And a few surprises have been left until now.

Obviously enough, the last phase of the process was post fermentation. Where there was still lots of interesting stuff going on. I don't want to spoil things too much by getting ahead of myself. But there were a surprising number of differences between the handling of cask Bitter and cask Mild. For no obvious reason. We'll see all of this in my next series of posts. Bet you can't wait for that.

One of the drums I keep beating like a deranged football fan is the influence of tax systems on beer. We'll be seeing a very good example of the crap brewers were encouraged to do by the particular way UK excise duty on beer was collected.

After that tease, here's the first table of fun.

16. ADDITIONS POST-FERMENTATION
Material	Rate	Type	Where Added
Priming	NONE
Acid	NONE
Hop Pellets	2 Pellets (1 oz per Brl)	North Down	In Cask
PFB	25%	Isohopcon	Racking Tank
Colour	As required reboil after 48 hours	Caramel AB (1045°)	Racking Tank
Finings	4pt/Brl	Penang Leaf	Cask
Sterilised Beer	7.5% Max	1031°	Racking Tank
Preservative	As S02 (ppm)	NaMs
	468 1 pt Brl	NaMs	Colour C.V.
	155 1/3 pt/Brl	(working Soln)	Sterilised Beer
Protesal	None
Lucilite	None
Polyclar At.	None
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 5.

I'll start with a big surprise right at the start of the table. Tetley Bitter wasn't primed. Which is odd for a low-gravity Bitter of this type, which was supposed to come into condition quickly. Which means they were relying on residual sugars in the beer for conditioning in the cask. 

The figure on the first page described as "Limit Atten," Is presumably the lowest the gravity the beer should attain after cask conditioning. The value is given as 1003.5º. Which would leave the apparent attenuation at 90% and the ABV 4.2%. Which is a good bit stronger than I would have expected.

I'm not surprised that it was dry hopped. The quantity is fairly small, but it is a pretty low-gravity Bitter. Handy that the hop variety is listed: North Down.

What PFB stands for might be a puzzle, I do know what Isohopcon was. A hop extract manufactured by Pauls & Whites Ltd of Reigate. As we saw early, this provided 25% of the bitterness.  It's interesting how late this was added. Only in the racking tank.

The caramel was added at the same stage. Interesting that the OG of the caramel is listed, but not its colour. I suppose that it didn't really matter as only a sufficient quantity was used to hit the colour standard.

Nothing exceptional about the finings, which you would expect to be added to the casks.

Next we see the effect of taxing beer based on what was in the fermenter before fermentation. Because sterilised beer is a posh way of saying ullage. This is presumably retumed beer which has been sterilised to stop it infecting the fresh beer. At least Tetley limited the amount to 7.5% maximum. Watney was merrily using 15% and more, depending on the beer.

Why did brewers use returned beer? Because it was tax-free. When beer was returned to the brewery as unsaleable, the excise duty on it was refunded. If a brewery reused it, there was no tax on it. When the system was changed in the 1990s to be based on the ABV of the beer when it left the brewery, that advantage disappeared. Tax was due on everything leaving the brewery, including any ullage which had been mixed in.

I was slightly surprised to see preservative added. Though some was added to the sterilised beer which does make sense.

One final table.

7. DRAUGHT BEER RACKING
a) Temperature (°F) (°C)	55 +-3 (12. 8)
b) Yeast Count (10>6 cells/ML)	0.5 +- 0.4
c) Dry Hop i) Rate	2 Pellets per brl. 1 oz/brl
ii) Type	North Down.
d) Fining (pt/brl)	4
e) Storage Time (Brewery)	3 days
(Depot)	14 days max.
f) RT residence time	6-48 hours
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 5.

This is mostly a repeat of earlier information. You can see that the casks were given a reasonable amount of time to condition: 3 days in the brewery and up to two weeks at the depot.

Why would it sit for up to two days in the racking tank? I'm guessing that was so they could blend together different batches.

Next up is cask Mild.

Tetley cask Bitter specifications (part six)

Phew.! We're at the last page of the Tetley's Bitter specifications. And it includes some of the best stuff. As you'll see in a moment. 

Well, straight away, really. As it's the very first detail line in the  first table. You might have noticed in the last post that two yeast strains were mentioned in the "Additions before collection" table. The way it's listed is slightly ambiguous. It could mean that these were alternative yeast strains and you could use either one or the other. This table makes clear that wasn't the case.

Because from the percentages listed that both strains were pitched together, in different amounts. This comes as quite a surprise. I didn't think any Big Six breweries were pitching more than one strain of yeast.

AB7 and AB9 are obviously Allied Breweries designations for the strains. Do they still exist? Is either of them still used to ferment Tetley's Bitter? I wouldn't like to guess.

14. PITCHING
a)Yeast strain	(AB7: 55 - 65%) Chain Former
	(AB9: 35 - 45%)
b) Slurry Composition/Yeast Viability	1:1, Yeast :Water. w/w / 5%
c) Pitching rate (lb/brl pressed)	0.625
d) Temperature (°F) (°C)	63/64 (17.2 - 17.8)
e) A fresh batch of culture yeast is grown up every 3 weeks.
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 4.

The pitching temperature is given as 63º F to 64º F. And what was it back in 1945? 64º F. Exactly the same.

15. FERMENTATION
a) Max. temperature (°F) (°C)	73°F (22.5°C)
b) Skim gravity/time from pitching	44 hrs.
c) Temp. & PG on emptying FV	55 +- 3°F (12.8°C)
	Target 1007.0 - 1008.0
d) Time in FV	5 days.
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 4.

The maximum temperature was a couple of degrees higher than in 1945, when it was 71º F, Not a huge difference. While the length of fermentation was, at seven days, two longer back just after the end of the war.

It's fascinating how much of the process had been mostly unchanged for forty years.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1900 Whitbread IPA

Time for another London IPA recipe. Are you getting bored of this yet? Just remember that this was requested. Maybe not by you. But by someone.

A beer with a fairly modest gravity, being a point or two weaker than X Ale, their Mild. They already had a Pale Ale, Family Ale, with a similar gravity. The only difference was a hopping rate, which was a little higher in IPA, but not by a huge amount. It’s really difficult to see why Whitbread needed to introduce it.

Most of the base is PA malt, the classiest type, obviously intended for Pale Ales. The rest is malt made from Smyrna barley, grown in present-day Turkey. Accompanying the malt is sugar of an undefined type. Absolutely zero description. Not even the vague “saccharum”. I’ve opted for No. 1 invert, just to keep the colour pale.

All English hops were used. East Kent from the 1898 and 1899 harvests and Worcester from 1899. High-quality hops, which says something about where this beer was pitched.

I doubt that this was a Stock Ale. Semi-Stock, at most. Meaning maybe three months secondary conditioning in trade casks. 

Any guesses as to why I've illustrated this post with a Whitbread Trophy beer mat?

1900 Whitbread IPA
pale malt	8.25 lb	80.49%
No. 1 sugar	2.00 lb	19.51%
Fuggles 90 mins	2.00 oz
Goldings 60 mins	2.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins	2.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1051
FG	1014
ABV	4.89
Apparent attenuation	72.55%
IBU	74
SRM	6.5
Mash at	152º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	58º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread ale

Tetley cask Bitter specifications (part five)

There's quite a lot of stuff still to go through. If you find Tetley's Bitter too dull, maybe fuck off and come back in a week or so. When I should have got onto their Mild, my earliest beery love. 

I'm still in Brazil, judging away. Just hoping they put me on British styles again. Far away from all the sludge and pastry.

We're past the boil and into the immediate post-boil processes. starting with the hop sparge:

10. HOP SEPARATION (SPARGE)
Whirlpool (Hop Back)	60 brls.
DeMarkus	85 brls.
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 4.

Not really sure what that means. DeMarkus, I mean. Obviously some piece of equipment. If you have an explanation, let me know. I assume this is all to do with sparging wort out of the hops.

Not totally sure about the next bit, either.

11. BREAKDOWN WATER
a) Added to wort	To FV prior to wort: 100 brls.
b) All water sterilised by steam in heat exchanger and cooled by Brewing/Chilled water.	30 secs, at 195 - 205°F.
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 4.

I'm guessing that this refers to water being added to the wort before fermentation. Presumably to get the wort to the correct gravity. If you look a little further below, you'll see that the wort was collected at higher gravity than the target.

And here's what was added to the wort before it hit the fermenter:

12. ADDITIONS BEFORE COLLECTION
a) Yeast - AB7/AB9	0.625 Ibs/brl. pressed yeast injected into wort main 30 mins, after start of 1st length.
b) Aeration	Compressed air after cooling stage in Paraflow to give D.O. of 6 - 8 ppm.
c) Zinc as ZnS04	0.10 mg/1 into FV prior water
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 4.

I won't say much about the yeast, because I'll be getting to that in the next post. The aeration and zinc I imagine are for the benefit of the yeast.

Finally, details of the collection itself.

13. COLLECTION
a) Temperature (°F) (°C)	63/64 (17.2 - 17.8)
b) Gravity	1036.8
(Metric)	1036.5
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 4.

You can see that the wort was collected at 1.3º above the target gravity. Not quite sure why they did that and then added water. Unless it was to ensure exactly hitting the target gravity.

Only one page of the Bitter specification to go. One with some dead interesting stuff.

Tetley cask Bitter specifications (part four)

You can tell I'm away on my travels by the number of posts I'm dragging from the entrails of that Tetley specifications manual. I'm not even halfway through the first beer.

When you read this, I'll be judging in Blumenau, Brazil. If I haven't dropped dead. You never know when you get older. Hopefully, they won't have me judging low-alcohol Lager.

Getting to the topic, we're looking at boiling. Starting with the basics. Two coppers, each boiled for 90 minutes. The hops split evenly between the coppers and added at the start of the boil. With pre-boil gravities of 1084º and 1030º.

How does that match up with 1945 practice? Then there were three coppers, all boiled for 120 minutes. No details about how the hops were split, nor when they were added. Pre-boil gravities were 1097º, 1023º and 1004º. So, quite dissimilar.

All the sugar in copper 2, but the caramel in copper 1. Adding the sugar to the weaker wort was standard practice.

9. BOILING
	1st Copper (290 - 320 brls)	2nd Copper (290 - 320 brls)	Type	When Added
a) Addition Sugar	NONE	ALL	Liquid or Crystallised	Copper 2/3 full
Caramel	ALL	NONE	Caramel AB Tintose IA	Before Boil
Hops	50%	50%	α Acid Target to each Copper	After Sugar
Irish Moss	42 oz/100 brl	36 oz/100 brl	Dry Granulated	30 mins before casting
Casting gravity	84°	30°
b) Boiling Time (mins)	90	90
c) Evaporation (%)	10	10
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 4.

I hope you enjoyed that. As much as I'll be enjoying a caipirinha right now.

 

Tetley cask Bitter specifications (part three)

More exciting stuff today. When we take a look at the mashing process. How much fun.

Even more fun, when I start comparing the process with the one from 1945. Starting with the water to malt ratio. Which is 2.25 barrels per quarter (336 lbs) of malt. And what was it in 1945? It was 2.258. So not quite exactly the same.

Next the initial heat, which was 146º F in 1985. Which is pretty damn low. Which implies that Tetley was looking for a very fermentable wort. Which makes sense. And in 1945? Exactly the same. Interesting that. A forty year gap, but the process is pretty much exactly the same.

Though not all the process was exactly the same. In 1945, there was an underlet. 10 minutes after the initial infusion. And the mash was left to stand for two hours, rather than just one. But that's remarkably little difference considering all that had happened in the intervening period.

The sparge temperature is much the same, too. Except in 1945 it was all at 165º F. Unfortunately, no water volumes are listed in 1945, so I've no idea what the rate per quarter was.

6. MASHING AND SPARGING
a) Mash rate (brl/qr)	2.25
b) Mash Temp (°F) (°C) (i.e. water & malt to masher)	146 +-2 (63.3° +- 1.2) varies with materials
c) Stand Time (mins)	60
d) Sparge Temp (°F) (°C)	165 - 170 (74 - 76.5)
e) Sparge Rate (brl/qr)	5
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 3.

I think that will do for today. We'll be getting onto boiling yet.

 

Let's Brew - 1897 Fullers IPA

Continuing with the requested theme of different types of IPA, we've arrived at London IPA. Let's see if this fits in any better with the English IPA guidelines.

Ten years have seen a few small changes to Fullers IPA, but is basically pretty much the same. The largest of these modifications is a reduction in the gravity by 4º. Which leaves it looking rather like an interwar 8d per pint Pale Ale.

Nothing much to the grist, still. Just base malt and sugar. As with many 19th-century brewing records, it’s very vague about the sugar, simply describing it as “saccharum”. This time I’ve plumped for No. 1 invert. Why? Because the log contains a colour value. 21, in case you’re interested. Which, assuming it’s Lovibond, is pretty pale.

There’s only a single type of hops, East Kent from the 1896 season. Good quality, fresh hops. Exactly the type that you’d expect in a classy Pale Ale.

My guess is that this was a Stock Pale Ale, which implies a year or so conditioning in trade casks. Accompanied by Brettanomyces, of course. 

According to BeerSmith, this hits three of the four specs for English IPA - OG, colour and ABV - only failing in bitterness. Where it overshoots the maximum by quite a margin.

1897 Fullers IPA
pale malt	9.50 lb	82.61%
No. 1 invert sugar	2.00 lb	17.39%
Fuggles 90 mins	2.50 oz
Goldings 60 mins	2.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	2.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.00 oz
OG	1056
FG	1016.5
ABV	5.23
Apparent attenuation	70.54%
IBU	88
SRM	7
Mash at	154º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	57º F
Yeast	WLP002 English Ale

Tetley cask Bitter specifications (part two)

As you read this, I should be sitting on Ipanema beach, sipping on a caipirinha. Or three. Or four. Don't pity me, I should survive.

On a more prosaic note, stuff from the Tetley's specifications manual again.  Quite likely stuff that might be of interest to someone other than a technician.

Because today we'll be looking at the recipe and production process. The sort of stuff that's a lot more accessible that different forms of nitrogen and their relevance.

First a look at the grist. Which is pretty simple. You might have twigged this from the fact that the malt specifications only include two types: ale and lager. There are only five elements. Three of them types of sugar and another an adjunct.

Here we go:

3. EXTRACT DERIVATION (%)
a) White Malt	75 - 80
b) Torrified Barley	5 - 10
c) T3000 or LPW	10 - 15
d) S.G.T.
e) Caramel	Small, variable
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 3.

Interesting that the base is described white malt and not standard pale malt. The question is: why? Because they were after a really pale colour? Then why add caramel? I suppose to hit exactly the colour that they wanted.

The torrified barley I assume is there to help head retention. Which was really good on both Tetley's Mild and Bitter. Though being served through an economiser probably helped.

A search on the sugar types - T3000, LPW and S.G.T. - didn't turn up anything. Leaving me totally in the dark as to what they might be. Nothing very dark, I'm sure, given the pale colour of the finished beer.

Next, we'll look at the brewing liquor:

5. LIQUOR
a) Source	Town/Borehole Mixture (2 : 1 Ratio)
b) Treatment	H2SO4, Auto-Injection (Variable)
c) Filtration (borehole only)	Sand filtered but not chlorinated
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 3.

I'm slightly surprised that they were still using well water at this late a point. Albeit only one third of the total. Even odder is the treatment with sulphuric acid. I assume that it's some form of Burtonisation, aiming to get sulphur into the water.

That's enough for today. Mashing next time.

Tetley cask Bitter specifications

I'm expecting a bit more enthusiasm for these specs now that I've got to the beers. The first being Tetley Bitter. 

 A beer which, considering how much time I spent in Teley's pubs, I drank remarkably little of. With all their pubs in Leeds selling Mild as well, what point was there drinking Bitter. It's only when I strayed into their pubs elsewhere that I was forced to opt for Bitter.

To be honest, it was quite similar to the Mild, in many ways. Their beers definitely had a house character. Which I suppose came from the yeast. The Bitter was fairly light, dry and not that bitter. A good drinking beer. And pretty pale. Not quit in the Boddies range, but paler than Southern Bitters.

Was it a typical West Yorkshire Bitter?I don't know. There weren't really a huge number of beers around to compare it with. Websters, I suppose. I can't remember ever drinking their Bitter. Their Mild, yes. But not the Bitter.

Consulting the trusty Whitbread Gravity book, Websters Bitter was around 85% attenuation. Pretty dry, then. Even drier than the Tetley's Bitter below.

Let's see what the specs tell us.

Tetley cask Bitter specifications
O.G. (in package)	1035.5 +- 1.0
PG (in package)	1006.5 - 1008.0 (Target less than 8)
Apparent atten (Z)	78.84
Limit Atten	1003.5 - 1.0
Alcohol (v/v)	3.63 +- 0.17
(w/v)	2.90 - 0.14
Colour (EBC)	21 +- 2
Bitterness (EBU)	30 +- 3
Haze (EBC/*F)	Polished (Fined)
PH	4.1 +- 0.1
Head Retention (secs)	> 100
S02 (ppm)	¬> 20
Cu (ppm)	¬> 0.2
Fe (ppm)	¬> 0.4
Yeast Count (10^ cells/ml)	0.5 +- 0.4
Microbiological	Absence of beer spoilage organisms
Packaged in Cask	9 : 18 : 36 : galls.
Storage:-
Shelf Life (weeks)	4 min
At Brewery (days)	5 prior to trunking
or Depot	14 days max.
Recommended age at point
of sale (weeks)	¬> 3
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 1.

Summary: middling gravity, quite highly attenuated, pretty pale, not very Bitter. Exactly my impressions

Interesting that it was held for five days after racking. Presumably to let it condition in the cask for a while. Meant to be sold pretty fresh, in no more than three weeks. Unsurprisingly, as a low-gravity cask beer. Get it into condition and then drink it.

Let's brew Wednesday - 1908 Drybrough PI 60/-

Getting bored of Scottish IPA yet? Don't worry, I'm just about done.

What’s more fun than a Scottish IPA? Especially one which fits in so poorly with the modern concept of the style.

It was the top of Drybrough’s range of Pale Ales. Were they really IPAs? Well, the brew house name certainly implies that’s what the brewery thought they were. Who am I to argue with the brewers?

For the period, it has a rather complicated grist, with no fewer than six elements. Only one of which is malt. Though the there were five different types of base malt: African, Californian, Ushak (eastern Turkey), Norfolk and French. Which was pretty typical for a Scottish brewery.

On top of that, there were two different adjuncts: flaked rice and flaked maize. Which is unusual. Brewers usually went for one or the other. Not really sure why they did that.

There were four types of hops, three from the 1907 crop – English, Fuggles and Bavarian – along with American from 1906. Just not a great quantity of them. Less than you would have found in the weakest London Mild. 

1908 Drybrough PI 60/-
pale malt	8.75 lb	74.85%
flaked rice	1.25 lb	10.69%
flaked maize	0.50 lb	4.28%
No. 1 invert sugar	0.67 lb	5.73%
No. 2 invert sugar	0.50 lb	4.28%
Caramel 500 SRM	0.02 lb	0.17%
Cluster 120 mins	0.75 oz
Fuggles 90 mins	0.75 oz
Hallertau 60 mins	0.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	0.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1053
FG	1015
ABV	5.03
Apparent attenuation	71.70%
IBU	37
SRM	7
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale