Stylistically Speaking - London Porter

No, not BJCP or Brewers Association Beer Style Guidelines, but historically a true beer style in its own right. Now, if you're a regular reader of Zythophile (Martyn Cornell) or Shut Up About Barclay Perkins (Ron Pattinson) you may have heard much of the information in this post and may care to stop reading. My motivation for the post is due to some background I looked into while formulating a homebrew recipe for said style, London Porter, that I will be brewing tomorrow (well, now today since it's just gone past midnight in Austin).

Obviously, since I conducted the interview with Steve Schmidt at Meantime Brewing in London for TheBrewingNetwork's The Jamil Show - Can You Brew It?, my first inclination was to just brew the recipe that Steve gave us for Meantime London Porter. However, I wanted to try some of the real thing along with other interpretations of the style before I completely settled on my own recipe. So, I gathered a few bottles of not only Meantime's London Porter but also Fuller's London Porter, these being the only examples from the UK that I could get my hands on. Knowing that at least before the late 18th century porters had a woodsmoke flavor to them, I decided to also try Stone Brewing's Smoked Porter again just as an additional reference point.
 

One thing was pretty obvious to me as soon as I started sampling - I really do like porters, a lot! There were quite distinct (almost drastic) differences between all three beers. I tried the Meantime first (though far from the first time that I've had any of these) and the first thing I picked up on was the smokiness in the flavor and aroma. My first sample that had come right out of the refrigerator certainly had a fairly strong smoke note in the flavor. However, I later sampled another bottle that I had let rise to proper serving temperature for beers from the British Isles and in the flavor, the notes of toffee, caramel, and chocolate were the most dominant and the smokiness was really quite subdued. This sample was also much more flavorful, creamy and luscious than the cold one. I then tried the Fuller's version. This is one lovely beer but is certainly devoid of any smokiness whatsoever (in fact, Martyn Cornell finds it too sweet). When I checked the website for its ingredients, it does, in fact, lack any smoke-flavored malt. Its flavor incorporates caramel, toffee, and a bit stronger chocolate malt flavor than does the Meantime but is certainly sweeter as well. I'd say the Fuller's version falls more into line with mid- to late-19th century porters only without the sour notes (more on all this later). Now to the Stone Smoked Porter. I think this one is thrown off historically mostly by its hop profile which comes as little surprise given that it is Stone we're talking about. However, it is not so much the hopping rate as the varieties used. I don't think any 17th-19th century porter brewer would have had access to hops remotely similar to Columbus or, to a lesser degree, Mt Hood. I don't know what smoked malt they use either but it is certainly vastly different from the flavor of the Weyermann that Meantime uses and definitely much more pronounced. The aroma and flavor of the Stone porter reminds me more of a German Steinbier (stone beer) made by throwing super heating stones into the wort. It is a quite distinct flavor.

I ultimately decided to go with the Meantime recipe. Still, I wanted to know more about this world changing style of beer. Since it is an intrinsically British style of beer, naturally I sourced the definitive guide on the subject first - Martyn Cornell's Amber, Gold and Black. The grist for Meantime's London Porter includes two malts related to historical London porter from before the mid-18th century, Brown Malt and Weyermann's Smoked Malt (Rauch Malt). No, London brewers didn't use German smoked malt, for certain. The historical tie is actually with Brown Malt, also known at the time in question as Blown, Snap or Porter Malt. This is probably best described by quoting Henry Stopes in Malt and Malting, published in 1885 - "Slight differences only are made in the processes of manufacture of this article [Brown, Blown, Snap, or Porter Malt] from ordinary or pale malt in all stages except the final one of drying." "The corn is then laden upon the kiln at a thickness rarely exceeding one and a-half inches. The fire consists exclusively of wood, generally oak, but occasionally beech." "Moderate heat is maintained at first until the moisture has been largely dissipated, then the fire is made up, and flares and blazes...". "The sudden and intense heat causes all the grain that has been properly grown to swell to the extent of twenty-five per cent., and the nature of the fuel employed communicates, very agreeably, the empyreumatic [roast, burnt and probably smoky (Cornell)] properties that distinguish this class of malt." The malt was referred to as 'blown' because the heat became so intense that the kernels actually burst, exploded like popcorn. They picked up the woodsmoke flavor from the oak/beech wood used to fire the kiln. Hence, these original porters did have a smoky element to them.

Obviously, no 'blown' malt is made today. Neither are modern Brown Malts very similar to their predecessors used to make London porter. Meantime's use of modern Brown Malt along with the Weyermann Smoked Malt is a practical, contemporary attempt at reproducing the flavor of these London porters prior to about the mid-18th century, the original porters. One element missing from any of these modern interpretations of London Porter is the stale/sour element of certain aged porters. However, I leave this for the next post. More to come on the history of this once number one beer style in the world...

Yours Aye!
Neil

Cascadian Dark Ale

Many have written about a supposed new beer style. It is black in color, has a somewhat malty sweet body with notes of caramel, toasted or roasted malt, and it is hopped to the teeth with citrusy and piney hops from the American pacific northwest. I've seen at least three different names attached to it: Cascadian Dark Ale, Black IPA, and (the worst of the lot in my opinion) India Black Ale.

So the first question that comes to mind for me is do we really need yet another beer style classification? There are already 23 styles (most having 3-5 sub-styles) in the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) Style Guidelines. Is this beer so unique and, more importantly, so well defined as to call for a new category? Personally, I think not. However, that is really only the formality side of the question left to those obsessed with categorizing beers. I really don't want to get hung up on that, this type of beer intrigues me. If I'm going to throw my hat in for a name, the only one I think is suitable is Cascadian Black Ale. These beers taste nothing like an IPA and as Matt Van Wyk of Oregon's Oakshire Brewing stated in a very politically correct way in his article "Cascadian Dark Ale: A Rose By Any Other Name" at CraftBeer.com, "Using the term "black" and "pale" in the beer name is awfully confusing to the consumer." No, I would call it more along the lines of moronic and far worse is associating "India" with this beer at all. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the true, historical India Pale Ale. If you want that real definition I encourage you to read Martyn Cornell's excellent "Amber, Gold & Black: The History of Britain's Great Beers". Sure, it's hoppy but that really is where it ends. I think Matt did a great job summing his arguments for what the beer is all about. I encourage you to read it.

In the last couple of weeks I have tried four commercial interpretations of this beer, call it what you will. Of the four, there is really only one that I personally would deem as a definitive example (I'll get to that in a minute). Starting at the bottom of the list of ones I have tried sits, somewhat surprisingly to me, Widmer Brothers Pitch Black IPA. I say surprisingly because I've really enjoyed most of the Widmer beers I've had. There is nothing wrong with this beer at all, let me state that right out. I just think of all the ones I tried it has the least amount of the characters that I anticipated and is, in my opinion, the most commercially acceptable version. It is black, it is somewhat hoppy, but the toasty/roasty malt flavor is very subdued and the hops are not as assertive as most of the others. Don't let me discourage you from trying it, like I said, it is a good beer in its own right and very drinkable. It is brewed with Pale Malt, Caramel Malt, Carapils, Special Roast, and Carafa Special II and hopped with Alchemy and Cascade. The quoted IBUs are 65 and it is 6.5% ABV.

Next on the list of ones I tried is Stone Brewing's Sublimely Self-Righteous Ale. Like all Stone beers, this one is dominated by hops and this is my problem with it. The hops overwhelm nearly everything in the beer with respect to flavor and aroma. The hops are very citrusy and smell of freshly mowed grass and subdue any aromas of malt. There is an underlying flavor of malty sweetness with notes of caramel, coffee and dark chocolate but hops are still at the forefront. It finishes very dry with a strong bitter aftertaste of dark roasted malt. The company's website doesn't list the grist bill for the beer but the hops are given as Chinook, Simcoe and Amarillo with a stated bitterness level of 90 IBUs and a strength of 8.7% ABV.

Second to best of the beers I've tried so far is from a homebrewer from Illinois, Rodney Kibzey, one of the three winners of the 2010 Samuel Adams Longshot contest for his Blackened Hops. Being a homebrewer myself for nearly 15 years, I'm always glad to see another gain recognition. The website doesn't give any statistics on Rodney's beer (or any of the other previous winners for that matter) which I find very annoying and somewhat inconsiderate. It does clock in at 7.0% ABV. I'd say this one is the sweetest and most malt driven of the lot by far. The hop level really only serves to keep the maltiness from being overwhelming. I guess in this respect, the beer actually falls quite short in matching the hop characteristics expected by this new style. It is, however, a very enjoyable beer to drink and has loads of caramel, toffee, and subtle chocolate notes.

The best beer in the lineup and the one I think will be hard to top should I try any more interpretations of this style can be summed up with the phrase 'I never met a Deschutes beer I didn't like.' Deschutes Brewery's Hop In The Dark is classified by the brewery as a Cascadian Dark Ale. This beer is incredibly complex with loads of maltiness, caramel, and roasted malt notes coming through. It is heavily hopped but not to the level that it subdues the malty, toasty, and roasty character of the beer. If the style calls for the citrusy and piney character of northwest hops, this beer more than delivers. Frustratingly, the brewery's website leads one on with a homebrew link but the page only lists the malts and hops used in the beer with no mention of mash temperatures, hopping levels or any meaningful instructions for a homebrewer. It does, however, list the malt bill as having Pale Malt, Flaked Oats, Munich Malt, Dark Crystal Malt, Chocolate Malt, Chocolate Wheat Malt (never heard of that one), Black Barley, Toasted Oats, and Dark Candy Sugar. Now that's a complex malt bill! The hops are given as Northern Brewer, Nugget, Centennial, Amarillo, Cascade and Citra. My guess is they use Northern Brewer and Nugget for the main bittering hops and the remaining for that northwest hop flavor and aroma. It is 6.5% ABV and has a quoted hop bitterness of 70 IBUs. I really encourage you to try this beer if you can find some. Note that it is a seasonal beer for Deschutes so if you see it get it while you can.

I do find this 'style' very intriguing but I'm still on the fence (mostly on the opposite side) as to whether it is really a new beer style classification. It really is worth trying all of these beers and I, myself, will continue to seek out further interpretations of this very American of beers.

Yours Aye!
Neil

Brew Day and Whirlpools

Yes, it is brew day again at the Leaky Spicket brewery. And, no, I'm not talking about a relaxing whirlpool bath, although with the humidity such as it is today here in Texas I might as well be in a sauna! Two batches today so quite a long day. I am excited about these two brews not only because they're newly created recipes of mine but also since they are both going to try a new technique. The first of the two beers is kind of my take on something similar to a west coast red ale (I know, not a real style according BJCP guidelines but many will understand what I mean) but with a distinctly British slant. The other is a straight ahead Standard or Ordinary Bitter but a recipe a bit different from ones I've done in the past. It is a good thing my new 55lb. sack of Thomas Fawcett Maris Otter came in time or I would have had to postpone.

First, let me give you an idea of what the conditions are like in the 'brew house' (the garage). Today, my inside thermometer says 88F, 75% relative humidity according to the hygrometer, and the barometer is off the scale on the low side. Lovely, like I said, sauna. To the left is a quick peak at the grain storage cabinet. Obviously, this is the starting place for any beer. I make a point to purchase ingredients that are appropriate to the type of beer I'm brewing. Right now that means exclusively British malts; many from Thomas Fawcett, some from Simpsons and one from Bairds.

So, what about this whirlpool thing? Well, it is something I picked up from Jamil Zainascheff, you know, that guy that has won tons of homebrewer awards, does two shows on The Brewing Network (including the one I help interview for, 'Can You Brew It?'), and now soon to become a professional owner/brewer at Heretic Brewing. Jamil is a firm believer in immersion chillers with a whirlpool and he created a modification to his chiller that allows just that using a high-temp pump such as a March pump. I whimped out and bought my whirlpool kit at More Beer as it was designed specifically for the massive immersion chiller of theirs that I already have; however, I saw one at my local shop, Austin Homebrew, the other day and I'm sure others have them as well. If you're handy, one could easily be made by bending a bit of copper. After attaching the "Jamil tube", I'll call it, this is what the chiller looks like.

I was not so much interested in the increased efficiency of the immersion chiller using this method as I already have a Blichmann Therminator so chilling wort quickly is not an issue. No, what interested me was a couple of things. Most importantly, some claim that by late hopping and whirlpooling more of the hop flavor and aroma gets taken up by the beer. In particular, aroma similar to a commercial beer is something that homebrewers struggle to achieve due to the differences in scale. If this technique helps, I was game to try it. Secondly, Jamil at least swears that this also helps to run off clearer chilled wort into the fermenter. I have to say my first experience did not yield this but it was likely due to my disturbing the whirlpool when I should have just left well enough alone. We'll see in the next batch with pellet hops (more on this in a minute). Finally, and this is not of much use to me except during Oktoberfest because I rarely do lager style beers but Jamil also uses this technique to chill the wort low enough for lager yeast pitching.

Now, one issue that bothered me about Jamil's technique is that he only uses pellet hops. No, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this; however, there are a couple of things that present a problem for me at the present time. Most importantly, I have quite a stock of whole hops and I'm not willing to just chuck them out but more than that I have a preference for using whole hops even though there is much greater loss of wort and I've had to adjust my batch size to compensate for this. However, it is true that whole hops just don't keep as well not to mention the fact that they take up a lot more storage space. Anyway, around the same time that I contacted Jamil for some details about this, I was also reading Gordon Strong's new book, "Brewing Better Beer". Gordon is a big proponent of whole hops too, as I found out. So, I got in touch with Gordon to ask him about how he achieves a whirlpool using whole hops. Long story short, Gordon has a somewhat unique brew kettle that has a very heavy false bottom in it; therefore, he can run off into a counterflow chiller or use an immersion chiller as in Jamil's technique and whole hops are not a problem because they are blocked from getting to the pump. Well, that got me to thinking, I always use the screen in my Blichmann BoilerMaker pot when using whole hops, so unless there are just SO many hops that the screen gets plugged (something that can just as easily happen even when not using a whirlpool) why not give it a try too?

So, I did. My first batch used solely pellet hops and my second batch used solely whole hops. I used the same MoreBeer immersion chiller with the Jamil whirlpool tube for both batches. For the first, I left the screen out of the BoilerMaker but left the dip tube and the second was just as normal other than the fact that I did not use my Therminator as I normally would. As mentioned, I had some trouble with hop trub getting to the fermenter with the pellets - more than I wanted at least - but I doubt it will have a detrimental effect on the beer. And, I think the next batch that I use pellets I will be more careful. All in all I was pleased. What surprised me a little was the whole hop technique. I had no issues whatsoever with the whole hops, BoilerMaker screen in place, and pump through the immersion chiller tube to whirlpool. But, more importantly, the clarity of the wort was really clean for which I was very pleased. There are also some positive effects in chilling the entire wort as quickly as possible as opposed to quick chilling using a counterflow chiller such as the Therminator; however, I've leave that for another post.

The proof will be in the drinking; unfortunately, that won't happen until about three weeks from now. Stay tuned...

Yours Aye!

Neil

Life On Mars

No, this subject is not the David Bowie song. It's the name I've chosen for my third brew in my finally active again Leaky Spicket home brewery (and the impetus for the name of the URL of this blog). The first two brews, my 80/- and my Scottish Pale Ale are very good given its been since June 2010 that I last brewed. These two brews have also been very elusive for me as well. I have brewed and tweaked and brewed and tweaked and brewed these two recipes more than any others that I've done in the last fourteen years of my all-grain homebrewing career. Anyone familiar with Scottish cask-conditioned beer can probably guess what two beers these are modeled after. I started homebrewing, afterall, because I fell in love with beers like these in Scotland and could not get them here. So, I had no choice but to try to brew them myself. And far be it from me to do anything half-way.

But, that's not what we're here to talk about. Rather, its the third brew, "Life On Mars Mild Ale". Two questions possibly come to mind. One, why a Mild Ale and two, what is this Life On Mars thing all about? Let's deal with the latter first, if you will. "Life On Mars" was a great series on BBC television in the UK a couple of years ago that was thankfully re-played here in America on BBCAmerica. I was so hooked on it that I had to buy the UK DVDs for both series (yes, thanks to my friend Nigel Allison I have a PAL player). I've actually been re-watching them over the last week. This has to be one of the best series ever done, in my humble opinion. The main character in the show, Sam Tyler, is a modern day DCI who is involved in an automobile accident, goes into a coma, and while in it lives a life as a DC (yes, demoted one rank) in 1973 Manchester, England. Awesome! The soundtrack is great too; really makes the show. There was a US version too that was no where near as good but was actually quite OK until the ridiculous ending (not only it did it not match the original, it was a total farce).

OK, now, why a Mild Ale, and, come to think of it, what on earth is a Mild Ale? This time, let's cover the former first. That's an easy one, because on the Campaign For Real Ale's (CAMRA) calendar May is Mild Month. I've tried to sync up with this for a number of years now and never seem to manage it. This year, no excuses and hopefully that will be the case going forward. For those not familiar with CAMRA I'd invite you to check out their website and also their role in cask-conditioned, or real, ale in the UK as described in What Is Real Ale? on my website. I've been a member of CAMRA almost as long as I've been homebrewing (about fourteen years). The more difficult question is the latter, what is a Mild Ale? As with all British beer styles, I turn to Martyn Cornell and his excellent book Amber Gold & Black, in particular (Martyn's other books are well worth having too). I would turn to Ron Pattinson's book, Mild Ale, as well but I don't yet have a copy of it - my fault. You can glean what great British beer historians these guys are by visiting Martyn's Zythophile blog, and Ron's Shut Up About Barclay Perkins blog.

As Martyn says, "Mild is Britain's most misunderstood beer" - notice, he does not say 'beer style', more on this in a bit. As Martyn describes, there was only one requirement for a beer to be referred to as "mild" and that was that it should be fresh, not more than a couple of weeks old. It would have been only matured for four to ten days after being racked to cask and then delivered to the pub. All other beers at the time, the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, would have been matured at least twenty-one days, most more, before being delivered to the pub. Without going into a lengthy dissertation on my part, in general, the majority of Mild Ales in Britain were sweeter and often of lower gravity and hence, strength of alcohol (but keep in mind, the strength is in relation to the strength of beers at any given period meaning that many were still high in alcohol by modern expectations). The increased sweetness was due to the lesser use of hops and also the increased amount of dextrins left in the beer due to the shorter maturation time. Both of these were an outcome of the fact that Mild Ale was meant to be a beer of rapid turnover and therefore didn't need the additional preservative qualities that higher hopping and alcohol rates provide. That is not to say that all Mild Ales were lesser in strength. Additionally, in the twentieth century, especially the latter part, most beers sold as Mild were darker than standard Pale Ales due to the addition of more highly roasted malts such as Chocolate Malt and Black Malt. These malts contributed more body and character to the beers to compensate somewhat for the lower alcohol and to give them a fuller flavor. In summary, I like how Martyn argues that "...mild was originally a description rather than a style..." and highlights that "...it was possible to find mild or freshly brewed, immature versions of any sort of beer..." These included mild bitters, mild porters and mild stouts. I do find it somewhat curious that the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) Style Guidelines put "Mild" as a sub-category of "English Brown Ale". I've never understood this and it certainly flies in the face of Martyn's argument about Mild being a description of the condition of a beer rather than being a style of beer as we think of styles.

Unfortunately, Mild Ales eventually began a rapid decline when Bitter took over in Britain as the beer of choice and by the 1970s there were only a few breweries still brewing beers labeled as Mild Ales. This decline in popularity was due in part to dubious practices by publicans. Mild Ales were delivered to the pub already bright (well attenuated) and contained little to no yeast. Bitters and Pale Ales, however, did contain yeast in the cask and needed to be conditioned further in the pub until they dropped bright and were ready to serve. The dubiousness comes from a practice some publicans indulged in by reintroducing the 'slop' beer back into the cask. If this 'slop' was added to a cask of Bitter it would again become cloudy due to disturbing the yeast; therefore, they added it to the Mild instead. This is not the only reason for Mild's decline, much is simply due to the changing tastes and palates of beer drinkers.

So where does this leave us? Well, I know where it leaves me - time to watch more episodes of "Life On Mars" and eagerly await the arrival in a couple of weeks' time of 'Life On Mars Mild Ale' on the Leaky Spicket taps. This is one beer 'description' that I certainly intend to explore further as a homebrewer and a beer drinker. I think it is well worth the effort.

As a postlude, what is the connection between "Life On Mars", the TV series and Life On Mars Mild Ale? Well, none really. Mild starts with "M" and I was simply thinking of "M" sounding titles for my Mild Ale. The two came together quite happily, at least in my mind.

Yours Aye!
Neil

Stewart Brewing 'St Giles' - The Final Care Package Beer

I know, I know, WAY over due. I actually tried this beer way back in December but it has taken me until now to find the time to write about it. Anyway, this is the final beer from my Alan McRobb Care Package and I must say I saved the best for last. St Giles, from Stewart Brewing in Edinburgh, is described on the bottle as a 'dark, smooth and malty contemporary taste of Edinburgh.' It is one of a fairly recently released line of bottled beers that also includes Hollyrood, a pale, light and hoppy beer, and Embra, an amber beer.

St Giles is indeed dark in color, a dark brown with some ruby hues. The sample I had was of medium carbonation and had a malty and what I would describe as a vinous aroma not unlike that of a Barley Wine. It had a medium to light body and tasted of malty sweetness with hints of dark chocolate, treacle, and cocoa. There were also some slight notes of coffee or espresso but without any sort of burnt flavor, more a roasty flavor, from the addition of more heavily roasted grain(s). It finishes quite dry with a lingering bittersweet chocolate flavor. It reminded me somewhat of a Scotch Ale but lower in alcohol and body, not too far from some modern Porter interpretations I've had. I have to say I really enjoyed this beer quite a bit, it is a shame I only had one! All in all it was a great beer from a great brewer.


Steve Stewart, the brewery's founder, obtained a degree in Brewing from Heriot Watt University and worked previously for various groups within Bass. He spent some time Stateside at the Harpoon Brewery in Boston where the impetus for Stewart Brewing began in Steve's mind. Steve and his wife, Jo, started initial brews in a mini brewery in Birmingham built by Steve and his father-in-law, owner of a steel fabrication company. Steve and Jo longed for a return to Scotland and by 2004 things began to take shape to make that happen. While doing the first batches in Strathaven, work commenced concurrently at the brewery's site in Edinburgh. Stewart Brewing started the first mash in their premises in November 2004 and the company has grown steadily ever since. The brewery offers tours by contacting them.

Yours Aye!
Neil