The Bar Towel

As an aside, here is a Victorian discussion of pale ale:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IgQMAA ... ed=0CFEQ6A

Some observations: first, OG started at 1055, about where it is today. Note the remarks stating it would be even lower if beer taxes could have been drawn back by (refunded to) the exporter. IPA was not a strong beer, generally. Indeed, the author states that the domestic version was stronger than the exported - the reverse of what is often assumed today.

The colour was advised to be pale, which meant, as light as possible. Still, there was colour variation in practice. Some IPA was amber.

The spec called for 4 pounds hops per barrel, which is very high by today's standards. Sometimes, the hops used were a blend of different years' production. Old hops hadn't the strength of newer ones. Even if you knocked off 1/3rd, that's still a lot of hops - even at 2 lbs per barrel (36 gallons) that's a lot.

The domestic pale ale was the same as IPA except less hoppy, states the author. But there were no rules to define how much hops went into one or the other of these beers, and there was no consistency in the business. The most you could say was, pale ale was very aromatic from hops, and bitter, with the exported version being more bitter, sometimes.

Note too the statement that while profitable, the India trade could be hazardous due to "decomposition" of the beer on the transit over. Pale ale was made to last the journey, but often it didn't.

Of the beers in Toronto today which come closest to this particular historical description, I'd say Granite IPA does, and Black Oak Pale Ale. Also, although it has a new world hop taste, Hop Addict.

Gary

I killed my last bottle of 2006 Delirium Tremens last night, it was delicious, and offensively labelled too!

The 2007 (?) Koningshoeven Quadrupel is simply amazing too. Almost TOO good... I kinda forgot I had 8 bottles left LOL.

I know this should go into a another thread, but I started here so I request indulgence to complete my thoughts, plus I think this will interest many including some of our brewers.

The fine brewery of Fullers in England, according to its website, produces daily 640 barrels of London Pride. Many here know this beer and I think would agree while not the most bitter beer around, it has a fairly pronounced hop presence. The canned version we get here shows that, never mind the cask which probably is dry-hopped. The website states that 110 kgs of hops are used for this output. I work that out to .26 lb hops per barrel. Does Fuller use pellets or whole leaf? According again to the webs site, pellets generally although some leaf is used I believe for dry hopping. I have read elsewhere that pellets have about 10% more bittering power than leaf hops.

Even factoring a 10% reduction, one can see that 4 lbs leaf hops as used in 1800's IPA is very high. While I said earlier that some aged hops would have been used, I saw recently a comment of Ron Pattinson on his historical beer website that fresh hops were used for the highest quality beers, e.g., pale ale and stout (strong porter). Aged hops were used in porter and lesser qualities of some other beers. So the fact is that those 4 lbs hops per barrel were probably fresh Goldings from Kent or a similar variety.

But let's take off a pound anyway from 3.7 lbs and also because alpha acid levels may have been lower in the 1800's hops from Kent (source then as now of fine pale ale hops). That gives us 2.7 lbs hops per barrel for 1800's IPA, let's say 2.5 lbs, which is almost 10 times the hops used in today's London Pride.

I know we have beers today from the U.S. which are very bitter, and perhaps approach these historical levels. I am not saying by any means the old beers were better, and I wonder in fact how palatable they were if as we know hops levels dropped steadily from the later 1800's until the modern time. And as I say: I find London Pride pretty hoppy, I am not sure how much more hopping I'd like in the beer.

I know hop bitterness in beer depends in part on when you add the hops (lots of direction on this in the 1800's literature as well) but once again, the hop levels in general of the 1800's pale ale seem very high.

I would like to taste a beer made from all-pale malt with 4 lbs leaf hops per barrel (36 gallons), or let's say 3 lbs, or even 2.5. There would have been variation by brewers in the 1800's, so anything in this range would be good to try. What would it be like?

Gary

G.M. Gillman wrote:
I would like to taste a beer made from all-pale malt with 4 lbs leaf hops per barrel (36 gallons), or let's say 3 lbs, or even 2.5. There would have been variation by brewers in the 1800's, so anything in this range would be good to try. What would it be like?

Gary

hey gary,

if you like ill make a batch of homebrew with this level of hoping. we'll go all marris otter for the grain bill and you can pick your desired leaf hop from the list here http://www.bartowel.com/board/viewtopic ... 3&start=15.

we'll plan for an OG of 1.055 and you can pick the hop schedual

cheers
matt

Hey Matt that's very kind. I'd suggest any English variety which has the lowest alpha acid levels amongst those available that you mentioned. Goldings if possible, but I'd go with a low AA hop since we have all read how hops have been bred for increased AA since the 1800's. 1055 OG sounds perfect. As for hopping schedule, let me try to find for you a period description which addresses that. All Maris Otter pale malt sounds good. I'll try to find a period description which address timing for hop additions.

Gary

G.M. Gillman wrote:Hey Matt that's very kind. I'd suggest any English variety which has the lowest alpha acid levels amongst those available that you mentioned. Goldings if possible, but I'd go with a low AA hop since we have all read how hops have been bred for increased AA since the 1800's. 1055 OG sounds perfect. As for hopping schedule, let me try to find for you a period description which addresses that. All Maris Otter pale malt sounds good. I'll try to find a period description which address timing for hop additions.

Gary

sounds good gary, just PM me or post in this thread. so to be clear we are talking a rate of 4lbs/barrel (36 gallons) or 0.11111lbs/gallon. a little over half a pound in a 5 gallon batch.

Sounds great. That is right because the English beer barrel then as now was 36 gallons. If, as I assume, you are using pellets, I'd knock 10% off, or make it an even half-pound for the batch you mentioned.

Look at pgs 307-308:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lxUAAA ... DgK#v=onep

As you see, Southby, a well-known brewer and writer of the 1800's, states in Burton, they added all the hops at the beginning and boiled straight through. Burton was a noted producer of IPA, so you could do it that way. Or, you could follow his suggestion to add some of the hops before the end of the boil, to impart aroma but less bittering. I think Burton wanted maximum hop resin extract - the beers needed to last and were going far away. But for a domestic pale, why not follow the multiple stages suggested by Southby?

An option is to use Fuggles at the beginning and Goldings towards the end for aroma, which is what Southy appears to suggest. But use your judgment and experience too of course. There was variation then and still is today.

Gary

matt7215 wrote:a little over half a pound in a 5 gallon batch.

I brewed an IPA earlier this year with 2.25lbs in a 5 gallon batch. It was delicious.

markaberrant wrote:

matt7215 wrote:a little over half a pound in a 5 gallon batch.

I brewed an IPA earlier this year with 2.25lbs in a 5 gallon batch. It was delicious.

the most ive done is 1.5lbs for a 5 gallon batch. 1/2 a pound in a 1.055 pale ale is probably closer to "balanced" then it is "hoppy" but according to gary's recipe most if not all of the hop were used for bittering.

ive never done an 8oz bittering addition.

matt7215 wrote:the most ive done is 1.5lbs for a 5 gallon batch. 1/2 a pound in a 1.055 pale ale is probably closer to "balanced" then it is "hoppy" but according to gary's recipe most if not all of the hop were used for bittering.

ive never done an 8oz bittering addition.

This is getting way, WAY off the original topic, but you could bitter with 6-8oz of leaf goldings/fuggles, and then dry hop with .5-1oz of goldings/fuggles. Also go for a high mash temp and/or lower attenuating yeast (S-04 would do, 1968 would be better). I think that would get you in the ballpark.

And I could be wrong, but wouldn't these beers be aged before consuming, even those intended for the local market? I would age for 6 months, then dry hop to mimic this.

I just want to say I'm not brewing anything right now! Drinking is more fun.

Belgian wrote:I just want to say I'm not brewing anything right now! Drinking is more fun.

But brewing = drinking in the future.

markaberrant wrote:

Belgian wrote:I just want to say I'm not brewing anything right now! Drinking is more fun.

But brewing = drinking in the future.

I don't understand.

The additional comments are appreciated. It sounds like this hopping Matt will do will exceed considerably what he and Markabberant have attempted before. I look forward to the results. I agree by the way that the hopping in the 1800's IPA recipes I've read is mostly for bittering. It is either 100% (per Burton practice) or not far from it.

Tonight at Volo, Vache Folle's ESB, which was superb, but struck me as more in the Saison vein. Rich clean malt with hops, coriander and camommile balanced perfectly. Reduced in price to clear and a bargain for the quality.

Also, a small taste of Smashbomb. I didn't enjoy that at all, just not to my taste (it's got that big earthy green pepper-like taste, I know it well from many U.S. APAs over the years). I much prefer the same brewery's Hoptical. But, different strokes...

Gary

think i may indulge in a couple torpedo's in a minute.