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