Shepherd Neame Kentish Strong Ale

[MashBag]

It's also worthy of note, this is the first recipe I have seen that mentions the camurri CB50 brewer.

An all in one machine but slightly different, my point being its profile could make a difference too.

[PeeBee]

Thanks PeeBee - The BJCP notes concede that "a wide range of interpretations is possible" for style group 17A - British Strong Ale. Among the commercial examples listed are:

• Fuller’s 1845,
  Harvey’s Elizabethan Ale,
  J.W. Lees Moonraker,
  McEwan’s Champion,
  Samuel Smith’s Winter Welcome,
  Shepherd Neame 1698

So many to brew, so little time!

That's a jolly list! I've only tried the first and last (and McEwan's Champion, which could be described as "memorable" ... but I've long forgotten what it was like).

If I've linked the 1698 with "Burton Ale" ("KK", earlier post), I've also seen 1845 linked with "Burton Ale" too. And it's a lot easier finding a recipe. I used an ancient Jamil Show episode CAN YOU BREW IT: FULLERS 1845 – THE JAMIL SHOW 10-11-10. But you really must get the Simpson's Amber Malt (and perhaps, though I don't find it essential, Simpson's pale and crystal malt) to be successful. And a shed load of "East Kent Goldings" too!


[EDIT: Oh aye ... yeast! Nothing too attenuation. Say about 70%. I used S-33 dried yeast. Fuller's reckon they age the beer for at least 100 days.]

[ozroger]

I'm looking for insights into recipe formulation for this beer, particularly the use of brewing sugar/s. The label is clear - "glucose syrup":

1698 ingredients.jpg (150.89 KiB) Viewed 2592 times

Glucose syrup, aka corn syrup, aka Dextrose, contributes bugger-all flavour (as I understand). I use it purely for bottle conditioning. Another use is to increase the alcohol content while lightening the body of the beer.

However from my tasting of this beer, there's a flavour component which I suspect is more than that which crystal malt would deliver, so I'm wondering if Belgian Candi Sugar might have been used to impart a real hit of caramelisation? I'm assuming that being a top-selling commercial beer, the recipe would be a simple one. Problem is Candi Sugar is sucrose, not glucose...

[clarets7]

It's all in the yeast. Brew lab have it. I sent it to them a few years ago.
I have a recipe for their Spitfire and if you brewed that to the required gravity for "Kentish Strong Ale" am certain that it would be very similar.
The yeast sample that I sent to BrewLab came from a 1977 bottle of Silver Jubilee Ale.

Is the yeast in the bottles of 1698 the original strain do we know? Only £2 a bottle from Sainsburys, I might get a couple if it is.

Edit, from the Shepherd Neame website: -

"A brewery’s yeast is the heart and soul of its beer. Our own strain dates back generations and requires strict management by our in-house team of microbiologists to keep its character pure. Typically a UK brewer will keep two or three yeast strains at most – Shepherd Neame uses six, meaning our management processes have to be second-to-none to keep each strain separate. Each batch of yeast will be used 8-12 times before it is replaced with a fresh culture, drawn from the national yeast bank (yes, really!) or from our brewing partners across the world."

From that I would guess it might not be their original strain in the bottles maybe?

[PeeBee]

I'm looking for insights into recipe formulation for this beer, particularly the use of brewing sugar/s. The label is clear - "glucose syrup"...

I did a whole load on sugar last year: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=83681

Don't mind the title, and the bad start (caramelising golden syrup - that was *%^$&**). A somewhat long thread!.

But the Brits were using glucose in beer back in 19th C. It was cheap (mainly from American maize, hence "corn sugar").

I don't think you've read it because you've dared to mention my trigger words! "Belgium Candi Sugar" ... see? I can say it without going off on one ... I think

... mmmrph

... grrrrr ...

... Flippin' outrageous fantasy ... "Belgium my foot" ... Complete, utter, boll...

Grrr.jpg (41.1 KiB) Viewed 2575 times

"https://www.vecteezy.com/free-vector/cloud"

... Let me out these flippin' chains ...

[clarets7]

I emailed Shepherd Neame and they confirmed that the yeast in the 1698 bottles is the same as it was fermented with.

[ozroger]

PeeBee, just read through your comprehensive thread on sugars. Thank you for the link. You surely gave your keyboard a good pounding with that lot!

And clarets7, I got the same advice as well re the yeast. I've made some nice beers re-culturing/growing Coopers yeast from their bottles, so will do the same with a six-pack of 1698. Oh, the pain we subject ourselves to.

[Eric]

Glucose Syrup.

Bottom left page 27

[ozroger]

Thanks Eric. I'm assuming that glucose syrup is less costly than using malted barley then? (or else why would they use it). Or does it give a flavour which malted barley cannot?

[Eric]

Thanks Eric. I'm assuming that glucose syrup is less costly than using malted barley then? (or else why would they use it). Or does it give a flavour which malted barley cannot?

Not necessarily either, but it would influence flavour.

A brewery with a fixed and, limited mash tun capacity, can significantly increase gravity and/or length of a brew by adding sugars to the boil. The alternative for stronger beers would be limited sparging or increased boiling, both lowering achievable efficiency. Brewlength can be increased by liquoring back from higher gravity boiled worts after boiling or fermentation, a common practice in larger commercial breweries.

At times past, sugars were cheaper than good quality malted barleys, some being byproducts of less efficient refining processes. As sugar has become relatively more expensive than malted barley, its use in beer has reduced, not necessarily to the advantage of the finished product.