Beers (late 19th Century and 20th Century)

[PeeBee]

It's what you've been waiting for ...

The results of those Invert Sugar trials using a recipe for Hancock's XX 1898 Mild:

20220619_204402_WEB.jpg (121.34 KiB) Viewed 353672 times

Well, no difference colour-wise. On the Left is Ragus "Dark" (No.3) Invert Sugar (the real stuff). On the Right, my "emulation" of Ragus "Dark" (No.3) Invert Sugar.

For both the aroma and the taste I thought the real Ragus Invert was fuller and more rounded. This surprised me because I was certain there would be no difference. I had someone (no, no, she has a name - Carol - my long standing, or is that "suffering", partner) so, a blind test is in order. Easy, so round one and ... I get it wrong! I can't tell which is which (or I thought I could ... egotistic tart). Try again, get it right. One out of two, I'll stop there or imagine myself starting a "Brulosophy Two" ExBEERiment channel!

The conclusion? If I know what I'm drinking, the one containing Regus Invert was preferred. If "blind", I hadn't a clue. Make of it what suits you, the real stuff, or an emulation of the real stuff. Either will do, though you can feel smugger if you've used the "real deal".



But my earlier attempts (caramelising Golden Syrup):

20220620_125609_WEB.jpg (97.24 KiB) Viewed 353672 times

This is the last drop of the 60L batch of Rose AK (1896) I made three months ago. It's fretted (gone cloudy and over-carbonated). Typical of these "running" cask-conditioned beers, they weren't intended to keep, and they don't! The bottles with it are the mild (Hancock's XX as above) and the "Barclay Perkin's 1804 TT" which is also getting past it (stale in the modern sense), but it is nine months old.

The fretted AK is also enhancing the Golden Syrup flavours. A lot of work (caramelising the sugar) and while it was good, had no advantage at all over the Invert Sugar emulation used in the mild above.

[PeeBee]

A review is in order? One I prepared earlier:

"The rise and fall of invert sugar"

The Regus Invert Sugar "emulations" have a couple of issues. Firstly colour: Not a biggy, but I've been comparing colours based on the colour of the sugars used in the emulation. I've been fairly sure the colours from week-to-week, month-to-month, year-to-year, would be fairly close but that appears not to be the case: Graham Wheeler had Tesco's Muscovado sugar tested over ten years ago and got back 600 EBC which means that sugar could be used as a direct substitute for "No.4" Invert Sugar (a solution of the sugar is tested, not the solid). My own plans didn't match that. And then "Wallybrew" posted the EBC of Billington's Dark Muscovado as only being 114 EBC, more than five times lighter than Tesco's own brand (from back over ten years ago). It seems these sugars cannot be used as reliable examples of colour. and I need better benchmarks if this work isn't to produce inaccurate results after the passage of very little time.

(That linked article mentions "The juice was originally boiled in "evaporation pans" though is now temperature controlled and kept below 80°C (under pressure?)". It should have been "(under vacuum?)" as they were "evaporating", not cooking).

Then we have taste: Although the brewed trials couldn't detect a difference "blind", I was convinced the real Ragus Invert Sugar had a more mellow, fuller and "rounded" finish. To correct this "perceived" difference perhaps I could add 10% demerara sugar to bump up the "lushness" in the finished beer (taste comparisons are far more challenging than colour comparison)? But Demerara is very variable, Billington's is seemingly lighter than others, so I'll be looking for a solution to suit anyone and not just me. The "difference" might instead be due to "inverting" the sugar; perhaps I should try inverting my "emulations"?

Plenty to do yet. But it's going to take me a few weeks to finish it to my satisfaction.

[Eric]

Thanks PeeBee, good work worthy of publication. I'll not post a picture of my attempt at Hancock's XX, it looks similar to yours. But further to that, mine is unbalanced and I'll not repeat it.

I've used #3 invert, Ragus and homemade, in lighter coloured beers often enough, but in small amounts or with #1 in the majority. The sweetness will, I expect, subside as the beer ages, but feel that will be longer than such a beer would ordinarily be kept. I suspect some of the malt was darker than the original recipe implied, and maltier than that we use today.

[PeeBee]

Thank you, Eric.

I find it odd to be on the side of simplicity rather than my trademark complicated (convoluted!) solutions. The "other side" has the complicated and un-necessary processes (caramelising sugars) for a change. The homebrew world has spent about 50 years refining their brain-numbingly daft caramelising methods, so I guess it won't be long before everyone is back watching pans of boiling sugar solution (if my efforts even made the slightest dint in the number of folks pursuing those silly ideas).

There used to be a site (www.unholymess.com) that detailed the crazy caramelising methods, but it also suggested an alternative "dilution method" (colouring plain inverted sugar syrup with dark molasses syrup). I read another article that the "dilution method" worked for "No.1", was passable for "No.2", but then comparison fell apart. I guess the comparison was with the "correct" caramelised syrups? The irony was the "No.3" and "No.4" dilution methods were actually getting closer to reality!

I probably haven't done myself any favours referring to my creations as "emulations". But that's exactly what Ragus are doing; "emulating" Invert Sugars because sugar production methods have changed so much in the last 150-200 years that the original raw materials don't exist any longer. And all those caramels and "Maillard" products considered to be so important to Invert Syrups weren't created by clever dicks in their sugar refineries and with pH papers, but by unskilled farm hands out in the sugarcane fields with their "evaporating pans".

Blimey, I could carry on ranting about Invert Sugars for ages! At least I've saved a few folks from the foolishness of boiling sugar solutions. And perhaps give some other folks access to "Invert Sugars" that had previously considered them unobtainable? Wish I'd had this knowledge a few months ago before wasting all that time and money on materials and equipment to caramelise sugar!

[PeeBee]

Next "invert sugar" brew is on the go. No comparison this time because it is trying out "No.4" for which there is no commercial comparison. It's the Boddington's Stout recipe posted recently by Ron Pattinson:

https://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/202 ... stout.html

Not a very exciting recipe but does give an opportunity to try a "No.4" Invert Sugar". I'm a little worried about it because I've added 226gms of Billington's "Molasses Sugar" to the 22L batch and I often warn against the use of too much black molasses, treacle, or "Molasses Sugar" because it results in a strong "sameness" to the beers used. But it's not loads. I've used "Wallybrew's" table of EBC sugar colours to increase the molasses sugar (proportionally) used in my estimates (from 40/60 to 22/78 "Golden" to "Molasses" sugars): Even at 5% solutions those "No.4" samples were difficult to compare. The emulations used were (for 21.6L finished batch size):

Emulated "Invert Sugar No.3" 83% (241g) Billington's Golden Caster and 17% (49g) Billington's Dark Muscovado.
Emulated "Invert Sugar No.4" 22% (64g) Billington's Golden Caster and 78% (226g) Billington's Molasses Sugar.

Boddingtons Stout 1901.JPG (21.83 KiB) Viewed 353510 times

That's where it's up to. Pi$$ weak, only a little stronger than today's Guinness Stout (I dropped a point or two in the making so "only" OG 1.0485). And not "pitch black" despite the "No.4" Invert. Boddington's living up to what I thought of them in the 1990s, even when going back 90 years more.


Now four and five weeks since kegging the "Hancock XX" trial ("No.3" comparison comparison). I drink either of the comparison brews now, without preference: I can't detect any difference between the beer brewed with "Ragus" Invert and that brewed with an "emulation".

So, I'm not planning on any "inversion" trials to get the emulation closer. But it does still bug me that fermentation was very noticeably slower (both brews!) which someone has suggested to be the influence of fructose (Invert Sugar contains fructose, the emulation creates fructose through the action of yeast on sucrose). I've ordered a big bag of dextrose (glucose) to be the "base" sugar in future trials to perhaps speed it up? If it works that will be a plus for the emulation over the Ragus Invert (although Ragus pack out, or "seed", their invert with 20% Dextrose ... the remaining "invert" is otherwise half/half glucose and fructose anyway).

Next trial is another Boddington's recipe from 1901: This time their "AK" to put the "No.2" Invert on comparison. I was going to do the 1911 Eldridge Pope AK recipe out of Ron's "AK" book but didn't have enough Ragus No.2 ("M"). I do try to pick out recipes with large amounts of Invert because comparisons are easier.




Enough!

You've all fallen asleep anyway.

[PeeBee]

I've been trying to avoid drawing brewing conclusions from those two Hancock XX trials, so what do I do ...

Yesterday I talk of using "dextrose" as the "base" for my Invert emulations; to correct a perceived slower start and overall tardy fermentation, Today I wake to find my "stout" (using 10% sucrose based "emulated" Invert Sugar) is already passing the target FG (1.013) in only 36 hours since pitching. It started in six hours too. That'll teach me to make conclusions from virtually no number of trials.

It was probably the change of yeast (S-33 dry yeast instead of Wyeast #1099 starters) ... See? I've started again!



[EDIT: 36 hours, not 18 (corrected in text). I think I've forgotten how to read 24-hour times?]

[Eric]

Well PeeBee, I've not thought invert sugar slows fermentation. It's difficult to be precise because only a minority of the last 5 years brews, the period covered by my current logbook, didn't contain sugar, but none of those seem to have fermented more quickly. On some occasions sugar was added to the FV one day after the brew, when the Yorkshire yeast was active and in need of returning into the wort; the result usually was quite explosive.

I don't like my brew of Hancock's XX, 15% of No. 3 is just too much, even after most flavour of the molasses has subsided. Maybe it could do with a lot more hop, maybe more aggressive hops, maybe even American hops, possibly even American "C" hops, or some part of the invert to be No 1. Currently it is being served half-and-half with a hoppier and lighter beer. With little of that left and a high likelihood with present events it may be a couple of months before the next brew here is underway, I can see me buying bottled beers for a while or living down at the pub.

Thanks for your comparison of Ragus Invert and commercially available dark sugars. My stocks of molasses and dark sugars are such that at 65p for a Kg of my base ingredient, T&L granulated cane sugar, it will be several years before using more expensive commercial dark sugars. I'll get there, but meanwhile must be getting a high degree of inversion, as after the process the sugar concentration is both higher and not at all inclined to re-crystalise.

Keep it going.

[PeeBee]

Well PeeBee, I've not thought invert sugar slows fermentation. ...

Hi Eric. Neither had I. This was the trace from the Hancock XX; my emulated Invert Sugar version but the trace for Ragus Invert version was much the same except it stated in six hours whereas this one took twelve.

Hancock XX.JPG (57.79 KiB) Viewed 353459 times

Fermented in three days, but for me that was worryingly slow (I expected it to be done in two). Someone on that other forum ("Chthon" from Belgium) did point out "fructose" has a negative influence on yeast pointing to this (winemaking) article: The fermentation of fructose in wine making. Another forum goer pointed out that my results proved using Invert had benefits in that the fermentation started sooner.

Accepting these points, I started drawing up plans to use Dextrose as a "base" in place of Golden Granulated/Castor (sucrose). Still not planning to "invert" ... there would be little point as Dextrose (glucose) is already a monosaccharide. But little fructose will be introduced.

And then I rattled off the Boddingtons' Stout using emulated No.3 and No.4 "Invert" Sugar:

Boddingtons Stout.JPG (44.7 KiB) Viewed 353459 times

(The graphs have been hacked lightly to both appear around the same timeframe and scale). Ferment starts in half the time and finishes in half the time (despite being stronger). Sort of blew my arguments to use Dextrose clean out of the water.

A reminder to build a larger sample size before drawing conclusions. Although (ignoring what I've just said!) I had changed the yeast strain from the ancient workhorse "Wyeast #1099 Whitbread strain to the dried S-33 (still a dextrin averse strain). The S-33 might well have been subjected to more sucrose in its development and copes with it better.

[PeeBee]

... I don't like my brew of Hancock's XX, 15% of No. 3 is just too much, even after most flavour of the molasses has subsided. Maybe it could do with a lot more hop, maybe more aggressive hops, maybe even American hops, possibly even American "C" hops, or some part of the invert to be No 1. ...

One I've got my eye on that probably ticks all those boxes; Let's Brew - 1909 Truman X. Another "Mild Ale" dug up by Ron for "Mild Month" (May) but this one is back in his comfort zone of London breweries. No "I guess ..." or "I think ...", just "it is ...". Invert No.2, even some crystal malt, and some American and continental hops. I declared not long ago I would not use those naff "Cluster" hops, but I was living in the past, they're not bad, not like the floor sweepings we used to get.

But for me that's for Autumn or Xmas. I already have my brewing allocation for the next few months, including Boddingtons' 1901 AK to continue those Invert Sugar trials (this will be No.2 Invert Sugar).

[Eric]

Thanks again PeeBee, I'll put that Truman's brew on the list. I can remember 3 Truman's pubs in Sunderland, their beers would come from Burton and they weren't great, but I can't see any reason from that recipe. Most of the draught beers around here in my early drinking days could be categorised as milds, but were never sold under that name.

Have you considered inverting any refined sucrose using acid for comparison with those you have recently used?

[PeeBee]

... I can remember 3 Truman's pubs in Sunderland, their beers would come from Burton and they weren't great, but I can't see any reason from that recipe. ...

Aye, I don't hold much prejudice against breweries when delving back 100+ years. Ron's scribblings have gotten me making Boddington clones ( ). How did that happen?

As for inverting sugar myself: I had chosen to use dextrose (glucose) as a "base" for comparison (skip the time consuming "inverting" 'cos I wasn't finding any taste difference with using Ragus Invert and my sucrose emulation). But dextrose skipped having the suspicious fructose component too. But that Boddington Stout (using all sucrose) put paid to that idea (1.050 beer that started fermenting in 6 hours, finished in 36). Perhaps I do not need to be suspicious about fructose? Some American readers might be happy seeing an alternative (using dextrose) to fructose containing invert sugar: Some fructose will breakdown to a suspected cancer inducing chemical - for the paranoid only, I don't subscribe to it.

I currently believe the success of the sucrose emulations (taste wise) has been the subtle use of darker molasses containing sugars with a more neutral "base", rather than attempting to replace the invert sugars with a single white or dark sugar. Much like the older "dilution method" described elsewhere (but more subtly done in these emulations).

[Eric]

... I can remember 3 Truman's pubs in Sunderland, their beers would come from Burton and they weren't great, but I can't see any reason from that recipe. ...

Aye, I don't hold much prejudice against breweries when delving back 100+ years. Ron's scribblings have gotten me making Boddington clones ( ). How did that happen?

As for inverting sugar myself: I had chosen to use dextrose (glucose) as a "base" for comparison (skip the time consuming "inverting" 'cos I wasn't finding any taste difference with using Ragus Invert and my sucrose emulation). But dextrose skipped having the suspicious fructose component too. But that Boddington Stout (using all sucrose) put paid to that idea (1.050 beer that started fermenting in 6 hours, finished in 36). Perhaps I do not need to be suspicious about fructose? Some American readers might be happy seeing an alternative (using dextrose) to fructose containing invert sugar: Some fructose will breakdown to a suspected cancer inducing chemical - for the paranoid only, I don't subscribe to it.

I currently believe the success of the sucrose emulations (taste wise) has been the subtle use of darker molasses containing sugars with a more neutral "base", rather than attempting to replace the invert sugars with a single white or dark sugar. Much like the older "dilution method" described elsewhere (but more subtly done in these emulations).

In early days I drank where older, more experienced friends would teach me beer was an acquired taste. Later I would choose where and what to drink, particularly so with my first car, a 1949 Morris Minor, which enabled me to determine favourites. Not a 100 years ago, but more than 50.

It's your observation that fructose and glucose ferment differently that caught my eye and led to asking you about making invert. I'd never imagined they would be treated differently by yeast, but had wondered why Ragus said their invert was 95% fermentable, especially No 1 included. I've been pleased to find both Ragus No 1 and my own No 1 provided more or less an equal residual sweetness after fermentation. Then thinking further wondered why I don't recall a similar effect from recipes requiring refined white sugar, sucrose. Such brews are rare by me, but I have 3 bottles left of a Westmalle Dubel made to Graham Wheeler's recipe that included white sugar. I'll try one when time is right to see if that taste can be found, and think you might have tried that brew to wonder if your recollections are any better than mine?

In early days of home brewing, when the licence requirement was abolished, glucose chips were a common addition, and I seem to recall they would provide a certain kind of additional flavour, but by recollection, that wasn't as rich as from invert sugar. I think there's still much more to learn about this stuff.

[man_beach]

In early days of home brewing, when the licence requirement was abolished, glucose chips were a common addition, and I seem to recall they would provide a certain kind of additional flavour, but by recollection, that wasn't as rich as from invert sugar

- it's interesting to note that on the two bottles of Shepherd Neame beers that I have on my shelf (1698 and Bishops Finger), the ingredients are listed "Ingredients: water, malted barley, glucose syrup, hops".

[PeeBee]

In early days of home brewing, when the licence requirement was abolished, glucose chips were a common addition, and I seem to recall they would provide a certain kind of additional flavour, but by recollection, that wasn't as rich as from invert sugar

- it's interesting to note that on the two bottles of Shepherd Neame beers that I have on my shelf (1698 and Bishops Finger), the ingredients are listed "Ingredients: water, malted barley, glucose syrup, hops".

Aye. Glucose Syrup was about and used back in Victorian times. This is a link from the 1st page of this thread:

The Manufacture and Use of Brewing Sugars in America

I had intended to try Shepherd Neame AK beers, but that brewery didn't (wouldn't?) use sugar in late Victorian and early 20th century, so was no good for my Invert Sugar trials. Shepherd Neame was a nostalgia thing for me; going back to my drunken hop-picking days (in Kent, of course).

[PeeBee]

Can't get it out of my head that there is a difference between the two 1898 Hanson XX I brewed. I'm still convinced the one containing "real" Invert Sugar (Ragus's emulation of the Victorian stuff) is lusher and more rounded than my sucrose "emulations" (made from a mix of Billington's sugars found in any supermarket). A month on from the original another comparison is in order before one runs out and there's nothing to compare.

20220730_211420_WEB.jpg (71.4 KiB) Viewed 353224 times

Still look the same (the one using Ragus's Invert Sugar is on the left). The sucrose emulation maybe slightly clearer (can't really tell from the piccies), the "real" invert sugar containing one does appear to have lost an extra gravity-point. Right ... I have my trusty assistant (Carol) who muddles the glasses and takes sips (cheek! But she reckons I can't then use the level in the glass to cheat). Best out of three. I'm actually picking the one I think is lusher to determine the Ragus one (Cheat! What me?) ... two down (wrong!) and I have to rescue this comparison ... "best out of five?" I'm beginning to have more respect for that "Brulosopy" Website of "exBEERiments"! Third ... "fail!" but being a desperate cheat, I declare that there is a bit of confusion about the "scoring" so start again. I get the third right! (The first two were wrong though).

Much as I think I can (with lashings of cheating to prove what a good taster I am), I truly can't pick out the beer containing Ragus Invert from the beer containing my sucrose emulations.

Next day the one with sucrose emulation ran out, so I won't have to put myself (and everyone else!) through this again! But I have the "No.2" comparisons to go ...