Long Aging of Crystal and Dark Malt Beers
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 9:39 am
In Michael Combrune's 1760's English brewing text he stresses on numerous occasions the importance of aging what he calls brown beers. These were beers made from medium-roasted malts. In his day there were malts kilned from almost white ("slack-dried") to jet black. Combrune seemed to consider that pale malts (yellow tending to amber in colour) did not need aging for this reason alone. I.e., they might be long-aged for other reasons (mainly if it was intended to keep them for many months and into a warm climate) but not because of their degree of kilning. But with brown or darker malts Combrune stresses the importance of aging to mellow the taste. I am trying to figure out why he felt that way. Maybe the dark malts were kilned over wood (although he never states this) and the smoky taste would subside with long aging. He states, in what sounds like an alchemy discussion, that since dark malts contain less oxygen than pale malts (this being "expelled" by "fire"), long aging permits oxygen to get back in and mellow the taste. Not seemingly a satisfactory explanation..
Yet, in reading recently also Roger Protz' book on how Imperial Stout was made into the 1970's by Courage (formerly Barclay) in London, I find an echo of this old idea of long-aging brown beers. Protz says Courage aged the beer for one year in oak before bottling it. When production was relocated to Yorkshire the 1 year's cask aging was stopped and it was up to the consumer to lay it away, and of course this beer was expected anyway to mature for some years in bottle.
That practice of aging for a year in wood is exactly what Combrune was talking about. He gives a table in which ideal aging periods for dark beers are specified and a year is about right in fact sometimes he specifies a longer keeping before broaching.
My question is:
i) has any home (or professional) brewer found that aging benefits dark beers, porters and stouts in particular?
ii) if so, why is that? I realise all beers benefit from a short maturation but is there anything about dark beers that makes the process more desireable and if so what is it?
Gary
Yet, in reading recently also Roger Protz' book on how Imperial Stout was made into the 1970's by Courage (formerly Barclay) in London, I find an echo of this old idea of long-aging brown beers. Protz says Courage aged the beer for one year in oak before bottling it. When production was relocated to Yorkshire the 1 year's cask aging was stopped and it was up to the consumer to lay it away, and of course this beer was expected anyway to mature for some years in bottle.
That practice of aging for a year in wood is exactly what Combrune was talking about. He gives a table in which ideal aging periods for dark beers are specified and a year is about right in fact sometimes he specifies a longer keeping before broaching.
My question is:
i) has any home (or professional) brewer found that aging benefits dark beers, porters and stouts in particular?
ii) if so, why is that? I realise all beers benefit from a short maturation but is there anything about dark beers that makes the process more desireable and if so what is it?
Gary