Based on a 1797 Guinness grain bill, seeking input.

[BryanMaloney]

I'm working up a recipe based on the following second-hand account provided by brewing historian Edward Bourke: 4 barrels brown malt, 6 barrels pale malt. 38 pounds of hops, for a final product of 20 barrels. Fortunately, Bourke noted that a "barrel" of malt in Ireland was actually shorthand 168 pounds. A lot of back-and-forth among me, a British brewing society, and Dr. Bourke finally was able to pin down how much volume 20 "barrels" of ale would have been in 1797 Ireland. Long story short, at that time and place, Guinness would have used 40-gallon barrels, but each gallon was 217.6 cubic inches. Lots of math later, and I could come up with ratios and amounts for a typical batch:

Pale Malt: 7 lb 5.5 oz
Brown Malt: 4 lb 44.5 oz
Hops: 4.5 oz

Since sparging wasn't done, I will be having to do infusion mashes. Going by Watkins (1773 edition), who generally recommended equal mash liquor additions, which is similar to what Coppinger (1815) showed, I will use three infusions, going that Watkins, Coppinger, and others would have either two or three. Temperatures are all over the road for infusions. Coppinger, presenting three similar brews, recommended 165F/170F/180F; 172F/180F/164F; and 160F/170F/175F strike heats, while the "Shut up About Barclay-Perkins" blog showed some Whitbread processes that were 165F/184F/184F. So, I still haven't decided on that. Mashing will be old school, with actual "mashing" (that is, stirring) for about 10-15 minutes (scaled down from industrial-sized processes) followed by extended rest periods. Gyle will be run off completely each time. No sparge, of course.

The boil time is again all over the board. Watkins hates boiling. He didn't recommend greater than 30 minutes, but he seems to be in the minority. Coppinger had very elaborate multi-part boils where each portion was boiled a different time, some of which were multiple hours. On the other hand "Shut up About Barclay-Perkins" has given me the impression that boil times got longer through the 19th century, which contradicts the very long boils of Coppinger early in the 19th century. They did produce one late 18th century source (that I can't find again, darn it) that recommended to boil 60 minutes then add hops for 30 more minutes boiling.

Anyway, would love feedback, particularly on what I could use for "Brown Malt". Do not just tell me to use "brown malt" that can be had in the present day. It's not the same and all experts agree that it isn't. I am thinking of using 10 oz modern Brown Malt (Crisp) and making up the rest of the "Brown Malt" with Simpsons Imperial malt. I plan to use Crisp Chevalier as the pale malt. I am considering using something called "Bole Malt" (https://www.farmpowermalt.com/our-malt), but it's from a very specialist maltster in Montana who doesn't ship.

 

[Donoroto]

You clearly know more about this than I do, so take these opinions with caution.

Recreating today's Guinness with a 1797 recipe won’t give you today’s ale, so no matter how it turns out you can’t say if it is right or not. I suspect today’s Guinness tastes better.

They also add ‘old’ beer to a new batch, and that has a significant effect on the flavor. Your first batch, lacking any old beer, won’t be quite right. Of course, that process may not have been used in 1797.

As for brown malt, I speculate that a combination of modern brown plus something very brown, with a bit of ‘overcooked’ bitterness, might be historically accurate. If it were me, I would try to use readily-available malts, perhaps doing some kilning of small amounts of browns to bitter them.

Again, how could you know? But not a reason to not try.

I would also boil for whatever is convenient, 30 or 60 both seem fine.

Mashing, I feel that once conversion is dons, thrre is little further point. Modern Guinness is a bit thin and dry, suggesting a cooler mash, like 148 for the first step, moving higher near the end, but here, again, this is a pure guess on my part. 180 seems waaay too hot, as does 170… but modern malts are very different from older malts, we enjoy wonderful modification rates today that simply didn’t exist then.

I’m sure others will chime in as well. Ambitious and interesting project!

 

[J A]

"Brown Malt" could be anything from 60L to 120L or more, so it's pure speculation as to what the actual "recipe" was calling for. You'll come up with a good beer but it could be much lighter or much darker than what you're hoping to reproduce.
As for the mash temps noted, I don't see how you're going to get any fermentables at all if you start at 165 mash temp.
Interesting exercise, though.

 

[Megary]

I take your post as trying to recreate an 18th century Guinness, not today's beer. But I agree with Don, this is an admirable goal and a very interesting undertaking, even if it is a bit of a goose chase. By this, I simply mean that even if you were to reproduce the beer exactly as it was, how would you know that you got it right?

Anyway, regarding Brown malt...
Again, without some very fresh 18th century malt laying around to experiment with, whatever you try is a best guess. I am intrigued by that Bole malt, but I'd be hesitant to go all-in without testing it out first. Maybe taking some of the Chevalier Malt and oven kilning it to a specific color might be an option?? Maybe even spray it with water first to create some caramelization? Just a thought.

Good luck with this! Please keep us posted.

 

[Dave Y]

I've done some porter research and have hit up 'shut up ...' several times. Brown malt was sometimes called 'blown malt'. IIRC in that era 2 row was in use for the pale malt (don't quote me) so you should be able to make your own approximate brown malt by 'kilning' it yourself.

I know you've asked for recipe feedback, but could you help clarify the end goal:

100% historical recreation?
a "rest-o-mod" beer - part restoration, with some deference to modern style, ingredients, etc?
More modern than historical, drinkable and good preferred over historical accuracy
other?

For accuracy, you'd want to use fire, not an oven, which may impart some smoke character.

"Brown Malt" could be anything from 60L to 120L or more, so it's pure speculation as to what the actual "recipe" was calling for. ...

THIS. Malt kilning was more art than science in the era. As I recall, we typically saw reference to 'pale', 'amber', 'brown', and 'black'. Maltsters of the era did not have precise temperature control so in all likelihood if you were to use temperature control you would probably come up with a better product! But in all seriousness, I would research kilning some pale malt to different time/temperature values and compare flavor to modern brown as a reference point.

As for the mash temps noted, I don't see how you're going to get any fermentables at all if you start at 165 mash temp.
Interesting exercise, though.

True, but how precise was their temperature monitoring & control for the mash? Likely not very precise. Perhaps they're referring to setting the initial tempt to 165 and letting it cool to the post mash temp and holding there. I agree, that's a higher mash temp than I've worked with, I'd be skeptical.

I'm definitely interested in this project, it sounds really intriguing.

 

[J A]

For accuracy, you'd want to use fire, not an oven, which may impart some smoke character.

That's a great point.
If I were interested in getting to the heart and soul of the original style, I think I'd start with some basic malt like MO, a mix of UK Pale Chocolate and Roasted barley with a few ounces of smoked malt (maybe peated just for the heck of it) for an SRM of at least 35 to 40 and enough EKG to bitter to 35-plus IBUs.
I'd mash a half-pound of malt the night before and let it sit to sour and then mash the main grist at a controlled 156 to maybe 158, adding the soured mash in at the end of the process.
From there it'd be pretty straight-forward. I like using Nottingham or S-04 and I think yeast selection would be fairly moot because I can't imagine that any yeast we'd have access to would bear much resemblance to what was originally used.

 

[Dave Y]

agree on the yeast. Guinness probably comes closest, they've been sour mashing for generations.

For malt, if we are going for a stout, rather than a porter, we would want some black malt. Since they weren't going to great lengths to debitter it like Blackprinz, a little will go a long way.

Actually, I need to get with my neighbor who brews, he's actually roasted malt.
I would probably start with peasant 2 row and experiment to get amber, brown and black approximations. Once I had close approximations I'd make my best effort to get several pounds of brown and a little bit of black malt.
For a recreation, I'd go with smoked malt, personally I'd not do peated, but as you've pointed out we really don't -know-. It's entirely possible that some maltsters were using peat to either create or sustain the kilning fire. So, I'd probably try to add in some smoked malt (Not mesquite, pretty unlikely they'd be use it on the emerald isle) OR I'd do the whole thing outside and use wood to roast the malt. Unless it was a challenge element to make the malt needed I think you could get effectively close with
Peasant 2 row
a mix of amber, & brown malt with a splash of black malt.

On my equipment, I'd probably mash about 90-120 minutes and for the sake of accuracy, no sparge even though I'm getting much better efficiency with the sparge.
I would probably target 25-30 IBUs with black malt involved. Without it, probably 35-ish, a few points either way being good enough.

 

[BryanMaloney]

You clearly know more about this than I do, so take these opinions with caution.

Recreating today's Guinness with a 1797 recipe won’t give you today’s ale, so no matter how it turns out you can’t say if it is right or not. I suspect today’s Guinness tastes better.

They also add ‘old’ beer to a new batch, and that has a significant effect on the flavor. Your first batch, lacking any old beer, won’t be quite right. Of course, that process may not have been used in 1797.

As for brown malt, I speculate that a combination of modern brown plus something very brown, with a bit of ‘overcooked’ bitterness, might be historically accurate. If it were me, I would try to use readily-available malts, perhaps doing some kilning of small amounts of browns to bitter them.

Again, how could you know? But not a reason to not try.

I would also boil for whatever is convenient, 30 or 60 both seem fine.

Mashing, I feel that once conversion is dons, thrre is little further point. Modern Guinness is a bit thin and dry, suggesting a cooler mash, like 148 for the first step, moving higher near the end, but here, again, this is a pure guess on my part. 180 seems waaay too hot, as does 170… but modern malts are very different from older malts, we enjoy wonderful modification rates today that simply didn’t exist then.

I’m sure others will chime in as well. Ambitious and interesting project!

I did not say that I was "recreating today's Guinness", did I? Please respond to what I actually wrote.

 

[BryanMaloney]

"Brown Malt" could be anything from 60L to 120L or more, so it's pure speculation as to what the actual "recipe" was calling for. You'll come up with a good beer but it could be much lighter or much darker than what you're hoping to reproduce.
As for the mash temps noted, I don't see how you're going to get any fermentables at all if you start at 165 mash temp.
Interesting exercise, though.

Brown malt was also diastatic. That much is very true.

Likewise, the temperatures are not mashing temperatures, they are temperatures at strike heat.

 

[BryanMaloney]

I take your post as trying to recreate an 18th century Guinness, not today's beer. But I agree with Don, this is an admirable goal and a very interesting undertaking, even if it is a bit of a goose chase. By this, I simply mean that even if you were to reproduce the beer exactly as it was, how would you know that you got it right?

Anyway, regarding Brown malt...
Again, without some very fresh 18th century malt laying around to experiment with, whatever you try is a best guess. I am intrigued by that Bole malt, but I'd be hesitant to go all-in without testing it out first. Maybe taking some of the Chevalier Malt and oven kilning it to a specific color might be an option?? Maybe even spray it with water first to create some caramelization? Just a thought.

Good luck with this! Please keep us posted.

Somebody did a test of it, which is why I am interested: https://brewingbeerthehardway.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/this-beer-was-made-without-roasted-malts/

 

[BryanMaloney]

For malt, if we are going for a stout, rather than a porter, we would want some black malt. Since they weren't going to great lengths to debitter it like Blackprinz, a little will go a long way.

I am going for not a stout. This was called an "ale". There was also a grain and hops bill for a "stout" as a distinct thing. What I am planning was called an "ale", distinct from a "stout".

 

[Donoroto]

I did not say that I was "recreating today's Guinness", did I? Please respond to what I actually wrote.

Ok.

 

[Megary]

Somebody did a test of it, which is why I am interested: https://brewingbeerthehardway.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/this-beer-was-made-without-roasted-malts/

I'd love to try some of that malt in my Barleywine! Seems like the perfect choice for your project. Hopefully you can find a way to get your hands on some.

Anyway, that's a very cool website you linked to. Could get lost on there for days. Thanks for that.

 

[J A]

Brown malt was also diastatic. That much is very true.

Likewise, the temperatures are not mashing temperatures, they are temperatures at strike heat.

I wondered if the temps were referring to strike rather than infusion rest temps. Reading your post closer, I see that you mention just that.
Good luck with it! It seems like an interesting project.
When I plugged the grain and hops into the calculator (using a typical Brown Malt of average color and low-alpha hops) it seemed to produce an .060/6% beer of around 28 SRM and 30-plus IBUS. That would be a good beer.

PS...you seem to have a typo in the grist amounts - Brown Malt: 4 lb 44.5 ounces

 

[BryanMaloney]

The 44.5 oz thing is a typo--not in my notes, thank goodness. It's 14.5 oz.

 

[J A]

The 44.5 oz thing is a typo--not in my notes, thank goodness. It's 14.5 oz.

Figured it must be some number less than 16.

 

[Dave Y]

I did not say that I was "recreating today's Guinness", did I? Please respond to what I actually wrote.

Way to win friends and influence people!

Lots of math later, and I could come up with ratios and amounts for a typical batch:

Pale Malt: 7 lb 5.5 oz
Brown Malt: 4 lb 14.5 oz
Hops: 4.5 oz

Even correcting for the typo, 4.5 ounces of hops? What kind, what AA and boiled for how long? Of course, the hops of yesteryear were crop dependent, and not the carefully selected, bred and modified hops we have now. In my narrow, military mind this is a variable that needs to be clarified further.

I am going for not a stout. This was called an "ale". There was also a grain and hops bill for a "stout" as a distinct thing. What I am planning was called an "ale", distinct from a "stout".

Historically that could be correct but you will probably understand the confusion since you did not mention what it was in your post or title and when your numbers are plugged into the B/F editor, with 4.5 ounces of hops at 2.5 AA boiled 30m here we get:

Matches styles based on stats only:
American Brown Ale, Robust Porter, Oatmeal Stout, Belgian Specialty Ale, Fruit Beer, Spice, Herb, or Vegetable Beer, Other Smoked Beer, Specialty Beer, Czech Dark Lager, Oatmeal Stout, American Brown Ale, American Porter, Pre-Prohibition Porter

Now, obviously modern styles don't match history. Porter is a good analogy, what we have now is a bunch different from where Porter began.
So we have the beginnings of an ale here. Initially I got something that would be close to 5.5%ABV, so I took off my sparge efficiency from my system/process and got 4.6% ABV, which I feel is closer, but probably optimistic.

It would be interesting to nail down more of the variables and brew it.

Sláinte / Živjeli!

 

[J A]

It would be interesting to nail down more of the variables and brew it.

I think the information is too sketchy to come up with anything other than an "inspired by" sort of recipe. I've tried plugging the quantities into a calculator in a few different ways and, while the extrapolated malt bill seems to work, the arbitrary nature of the "brown malt" makes it impossible to pin down, stylistically and the hop quantity seems out of range, even with low-alpha hops - hop quantity noted without reference to AA, boil time, IBU, etc leaves bitterness completely open to speculation.
I'm not sure what the OP hopes to accomplish in the discussion. He should just put together a recipe based on his educated guesses and brew it. There'd be no way to call it an accurate reproduction with any degree of confidence since there's really nothing to compare it to.

 

[Sandy Feet]

I did not say that I was "recreating today's Guinness", did I? Please respond to what I actually wrote.

Love the discussion about the beer. Save this garbage for your Facebook buddies. We are a respectful group, even when we disagree.

 

[Craigerrr]

I did not say that I was "recreating today's Guinness", did I? Please respond to what I actually wrote.

You asked for feedback, take what you like, and ignore what you don't like.
I have known Don now for several years, he is a super nice guy.
If you can't play nice in this sandbox, maybe you are in the wrong sandbox.