It is on the edge of burnt. Could see it in a stout though.Does the darkest one taste burnt at all?
It is on the edge of burnt. Could see it in a stout though.Does the darkest one taste burnt at all?
The you might have hit the small spot that is easy to overdo. As long as it is not bitter, it should be good to use.It is on the edge of burnt. Could see it in a stout though.
@Witherby What would you say is the colour you obtained? My 400 EBC was slightly ashy (very different from roasted malt bitterness), which I also tasted in the Leffe Brune.
Do update once you have brewed and tasted the dark mild.But the proof will be in the dark mild.
I tried this, the colour contribution was really low. Result was a a bit darker golden ale. Good beer though!I would think it is up in that range. Hard to say exactly.
I'm tempted to brew a mild and have this invert be the only thing contributing to the color. Probably the best way to judge the flavor and color contribution.
In the invention he changes this process to using raw cane juice and applying heavy filtering at the end, arriving at the same product.This saccharum has hitherto been manufactured from cane sugar (commercially so called) by dissolving the sugar in Water and submitting the solution to the combined action of heat and acid, and afterward neutralizing it by chalk or other suitable material; after the solution has been decolorized and concentrated, saccharum is obtained in a merchantable form and ready for use for the purposes above mentioned.
The usual method for making invert sugar, either for brewer's saccharums, golden syrup, imitation honey and such like substances also starch glucose, is to first act upon the raw material with acid and heat and then to neutralize and filter. After having done this, the liquid is decolourized by passing through charcoal.
I would so love to have a source for that. I never read that anywhere but in your posts.even though some maillard reactions may have happened, sugar makers took active steps to avoid caramellisation.
Historical recipes use up to 25% invert sugar. I have one from the 90s still doing that (3.5% ABV), but no definition of which colour invert was being used.I tried this, the colour contribution was really low. Result was a a bit darker golden ale. Good beer though!
I don't really recall the amount I've used. Might very well have been around 20%, but I'm not sure tbh. Could have been 10% as well.Historical recipes use up to 25% invert sugar. I have one from the 90s still doing that (3.5% ABV), but no definition of which colour invert was being used.
Thanks for the digging!I'm still trying to consolidate @Witherby 's findings with descriptions of invert sugars elsewhere. My previous understanding was that Belgian recipes use high-pH inversion and British use low-pH inversion, so if at all the Maillard reaction would be a feature of the Belgian syrups. We know now that even with low-pH inversion we can get Maillard by early neutralisation. My question then would be to all:
Here's what I found in the patents:
- Do you think there is any difference in the end product between a Belgian high-pH syrup and a British one with early neutralisation?
- Would anyone consider the flavours that Witherby got to be similar to syrups obtained by mixing golden invert with molasses (referring to earlier discussions and Ragus methods)?
I checked many old patents regarding invert sugar or saccharum, as it was called. The inventions themselves are usually not useful, because they are tiny details of the whole process or might even have remained unused. What is useful however are the description of prior art, describing the way invert sugar is usually made. I found two patents with relevant information regarding standard invert sugar manufacturing for brewing.
The first patent is from 1871 by Garton in Southampton.
In the invention he changes this process to using raw cane juice and applying heavy filtering at the end, arriving at the same product.
The second patent is from 1914 by the brother of Ragus' founder.
Conclusion: Both patents describe only a late neutralisation after heating has taken place. The heavy filtering that is employed also is supposed to take away the colour. Both patents describe similar processes as the 1896 papers I cited earlier, where the process was much more difficult to understand, but also used late neutralisation and heavy filtering.
I would so love to have a source for that. I never read that anywhere but in your posts.
The first patent talks of boiling for up to 12 hours as a general guideline. But yeah, the attempt of removing the colours is quite unexpected.And nobody talks about prolonged heating for flavour purposes. I think that this would have been mentioned if used.
Oh, I've missed that one. He says 1 to 12 hours, depending on amount of acid used and concentration of the sugar.The first patent talks of boiling for up to 12 hours as a general guideline. But yeah, the attempt of removing the colours is quite unexpected.
@Erik the Anglophile I'll need more time to dig through the whole thread. I was hoping on a direct reference to ease everyone's experience.
Ash and iron content doubles and triples whereas water percentage even increases with colour. This means they must have added something else to increase the non-sugar part. Molasses would be a reasonable possibility. I interpret ash as "Glührückstand" which is everything non-carbon and non-liquid after basically burning the sirup.I read the first page on DeeBee's thread and it is painful to read. He seems to be completely new to the topic and seems to think adding "tasteless glucose" is an issue for invert sugar. He seems not to know that invert sugar is about 50% "tasteless glucose" and that glucose has an enormous impact on fermentation and yeast flavour profile. Jeez!
I also remember now that he is the chap that mixed 15 different malts to try and recreate "historic brown malt". I could not finish that thread either back when I first noticed it.
His sources on the first page are the same I gave, the 1896 papers about sugar. So much for that. What is really great though is that he also referenced one of Ron's pages that I forgot about which always was my main argument against mixing with molasses.
View attachment 834443
Look at the table, check what are the differences between the three syrups are and then tell me again that DeeBee is right with saying "the difference was purity, not colour". I mean come on guys, think! People would use all kinds of words differently than nowadays, so just saying the invert was of "cheaper quality" would have nothing to do with impurities but only with its colour and therefore its usage in cheaper beers. "The palest invert was reserved for the highest quality pale ales" does not at all hint at any other difference than colour. It is just a statement of usage.
My conclusion: It was always about the colours and they were obtained by extended boil times, nothing else.
If it was just about color they could add caramel coloring.I read the first page on DeeBee's thread and it is painful to read. He seems to be completely new to the topic and seems to think adding "tasteless glucose" is an issue for invert sugar. He seems not to know that invert sugar is about 50% "tasteless glucose" and that glucose has an enormous impact on fermentation and yeast flavour profile. Jeez!
I also remember now that he is the chap that mixed 15 different malts to try and recreate "historic brown malt". I could not finish that thread either back when I first noticed it.
His sources on the first page are the same I gave, the 1896 papers about sugar. So much for that. What is really great though is that he also referenced one of Ron's pages that I forgot about which always was my main argument against mixing with molasses.
View attachment 834443
Look at the table, check what are the differences between the three syrups are and then tell me again that DeeBee is right with saying "the difference was purity, not colour". I mean come on guys, think! People would use all kinds of words differently than nowadays, so just saying the invert was of "cheaper quality" would have nothing to do with impurities but only with its colour and therefore its usage in cheaper beers. "The palest invert was reserved for the highest quality pale ales" does not at all hint at any other difference than colour. It is just a statement of usage.
My conclusion: It was always about the colours and they were obtained by extended boil times, nothing else.
Nah, I reject this idea now. Might be the right approach for nowadays Ragus copies, but anything up to at least 1914 has to be done without molasses. I'm still unsure if it should also be done without the neutralisation, as my posted sources indicate, but maybe that is a question on whether one wants modern or traditional flavour. Or British flavour vs Belgian flavour.If you only have refined sugar and molasses you can get to a close approximation of the color and flavor.
Sorry, forgot to answer to that. I meant colour was the differentiating attribute of the sugar. Not that that is what brewer's wanted in their beer. I'm pretty certain they wanted the flavour of exactly the sugar they chose, together with having the simple sugars as a yeast flavour booster. Expecially in light beers, where flavour from malt would be reduced.If it was just about color they could add caramel coloring.
Many of the breweries were using proprietary sugars. Do you think they all made them the same way or were both methods used?It would be quite nice if @patto1ro could chime in and give a quick update on his knowledge about whether the prolonged heating or the colour of the sugar/molasses additions were the main colour sources of historic invert sugar.
British or belgian flavor IMO is really not about the process (chemistry is chemistry, so the processes should be very similar) but rather the starting sugars. The Belgian sugars (modern ones anyway) are beet sugar and not cane sugar at all. So The "british flavor" is really just the impurities in the cane sugar used as a base i.e. molassesOr British flavour vs Belgian flavour.
For what I remember, there's a strong difference between the making of Belgian Candi syrup and British invert. The Belgian one is done without acid and with the addition of nitrogen in various forms to promote maillard reactions and the British is made with acid to invert the sugar.British or belgian flavor IMO is really not about the process (chemistry is chemistry, so the processes should be very similar) but rather the starting sugars. The Belgian sugars (modern ones anyway) are beet sugar and not cane sugar at all. So The "british flavor" is really just the impurities in the cane sugar used as a base i.e. molasses
Combine that difference with british yeast vs belgian yeast and you end up with two incredibly distinct brewing traditions. I bet if you took a belgian dark strong recipe and fermented it with a british yeast you would get a quite passable Old Ale or Barleywine. And if you ferment a bitter recipe with a belgian yeast and overcarbonated it, you would get a pleasant belgian pale ale
All of these details matter little if we are unable to perceive the difference in a finished beer after all
I guess that depends on how you attempt to quantify differences. Belgian yeasts are commonly POF+ (not always) which is universally a flaw in a British beer.Ironically there is much less difference between Belgian and British yeasts, especially those from Yorkshire.
Okay, I was thinking something was off with your reasoning in the earlier post, but dear lord!Belgian yeasts are commonly POF+ (not always) which is universally a flaw in a British beer.
I think you are right according to this thread, I think previously mentioned somewhere earlier.For what I remember, there's a strong difference between the making of Belgian Candi syrup and British invert. The Belgian one is done without acid and with the addition of nitrogen in various forms to promote maillard reactions and the British is made with acid to invert the sugar.
But I might remember it wrong.
care to elaborate or just tossing out vague insults?Okay, I was thinking something was off with your reasoning in the earlier post, but dear lord!
@cire Thanks for the info. Any chance that you have a source for this pH? The historic papers all just say "it is neutralised".
Sorry, I was really gobsmacked by your statement. This was the first thing that came up on google: Phenolic English strains?care to elaborate or just tossing out vague insults?
You misunderstood my statement. I did not say all british yeasts are POF- and cannot produce phenolics.Sorry, I was really gobsmacked by your statement. This was the first thing that came up on google: Phenolic English strains?
Nice stuff. I have seen many different recipes for Belgian syrups since they seem to be significantly more popular. They use a range of additions and also quite different temperatures so all kind of processes could happen in there.Worth a read @Colindo
No I was more just trying to highlight the difference between belgian and british beers. I was arguing that yeast more than the differences between the two types of sugars is responsible for the difference.@TheMadKing Ah, now I see where you are coming from. Sorry again for my earlier statement. I guess you are referring to things like open fermentation that keep the production of phenolics at a minimum? Schneider Weiße do the same for their phenolic wheat beer.
I must say I found the peppery aromas in the beers from the two breweries I tried, Harvey's and Sambrook's, quite pronounced. But of course Belgian saisons are much stronger in that regard.
I'd be careful what you read about early inverts, there was at least one case where a brewery in Manchester used invert sugar manufactured in Gargrave near Liverpool, that killed a number of heavy drinkers.
Enter your email address to join: