Greene King Abbot Ale

IPA, Pale Ales And Bitters, Mild, Brown Ales, Old Ale, Porter & Stouts etc

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby graysalchemy » Mon Sep 21, 2015 08:28

Dennis King wrote:Nah don't do cooking.


I would have thought you would want to have a go of that new kitchen you bought last year :whistle:

Image
User avatar
graysalchemy
Moderator
 
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:47
Location: Purgatory

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Kyle_T » Mon Sep 21, 2015 09:55

I'm sure BB's flapjacks are lovely but try and keep it on track.

More to the point, I saw this Dennis:

Dennis King wrote:
JayM72 wrote:I saw this post yesterday morning and when I was in a Wetherspoons at lunchtime I read their magazine, interestingly there was an article on Greene King and, in it, they say that the about that is brewed today is exactly the same as 'old' Abbott! I guess we'll never know for sure...



Sounds like big company b*locks to me. For a start todays abbot is 5%, in the 70`s it was more like 5.5 may be slightly more. Apart from drinking it several sessions a week in a local it also got several barrels from a local off licence for various occations, the firkin at my wedding lasted 2 hours, so its a taste I and most of my friends know like the back off hands. We all noticed the difference around the same time, some regulars moved over to directors as they did not like the change. Plus reading other people on this site saying the same thing. Can we all be wrong. I can see why they dropped the strength as it had a reputation as a looney juice but its such as shame its now a pale imitation. Something to do with becoming a national rather than a regional brewer maybe


I saw one of Ronald Pattinsons blog tables showing that Abbot had reached 5.43% abv in the 60's.

Did it go up again in the 70's as the brewery ledger say's it was brewed at 4.7% but they wouldn't tell us which year.

Next Brew: AG#63.

Beer Brewed (2015): 136.4 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2016): 90.0 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2017): 20.0 Gallons

First AG Brewed: 11.4.2013.
https://theessexbrewer.wordpress.com
User avatar
Kyle_T
The Essex Brewer
 
Posts: 2487
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 14:27
Location: Chelmsford, Essex.

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Dennis King » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:46

Was definitely stronger back in the day, as I said I think there is a certain amount of b*llocks from greedy king. The big shame is in those days they were a medium size regional brewer championing cask beer, even the IPA was a reasonable pint then.
User avatar
Dennis King
Moderator
 
Posts: 3465
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 17:20
Location: ESSEX.

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Kyle_T » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:12

That's always good to know :thumb: I have increased the ABV up to 5.5% and it seems to balance much better with a bitterness of 36.

I'm now questioning the hops involved as there seems a huge divergence on what's known and what's been brewed before.

It is entirely possible that Northern Brewer was used prior to Challengers release in 1968 and the recipe I have encompasses (possibly) the 2 most regularly available hops at the time, Fuggles and Goldings, but no other hops are mentioned.

As I don't know what year this ledger was I will assume that Fuggles and Goldings were the only hops used from the 50's to the begining of the 70's.

Challenger also crops up a lot in clone recipes, if you have any knowledge of this Dennis I'd appreciate it, or anyone else in that matter.

This leads me to think that the first subtle recipe change could possibly have happened anytime after 1970 and before 1974, shortly after Challenger became available and I would guess G.K. Would have undertaken trial runs from 1968 - 1970 (1974) before making a change.

I do love some good speculation.

Next Brew: AG#63.

Beer Brewed (2015): 136.4 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2016): 90.0 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2017): 20.0 Gallons

First AG Brewed: 11.4.2013.
https://theessexbrewer.wordpress.com
User avatar
Kyle_T
The Essex Brewer
 
Posts: 2487
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 14:27
Location: Chelmsford, Essex.

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Aleman » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:46

Just remember that hop availability fluctuates year on year, so the recipe will change to reflect that. I have a recipe for Adnams Southwold that uses Fuggles and Golding . . . but I've also seen that they have recently used Boadicea . . . and my now actually be using Challenger

please note:The use of punctuation, bold, underlining, italics, and different sized type, follows the convention used in writing, for many years, to place emphasis on the point being made, and to highlight the importance of that point in the opinion of the author. It is not the intention of the author to shout, if that was the case the author would adopt the, much more recent, convention of using all capital letters.
Albert Einstein wrote:Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
User avatar
Aleman
Curmudgeonly Brewer
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 00:28
Location: Mashing In Blackpool, Lancs, UK

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Kyle_T » Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:25

Aleman wrote:Just remember that hop availability fluctuates year on year, so the recipe will change to reflect that. I have a recipe for Adnams Southwold that uses Fuggles and Golding . . . but I've also seen that they have recently used Boadicea . . . and my now actually be using Challenger


I didn't think of that. I wonder if I can get in touch with Mr Cooper, he seems to be able to find these things out as to how much was harvested in a particular year.

Next Brew: AG#63.

Beer Brewed (2015): 136.4 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2016): 90.0 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2017): 20.0 Gallons

First AG Brewed: 11.4.2013.
https://theessexbrewer.wordpress.com
User avatar
Kyle_T
The Essex Brewer
 
Posts: 2487
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 14:27
Location: Chelmsford, Essex.

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Graham_W » Mon Sep 21, 2015 16:41

Aleman wrote:Up the malt by 20% and cut the hops by 20%, are good figures to start with

Dave Line seemed to have had little or no idea about mash efficiency or had an over-optimistic view of what could be achieved, so an increase in the fermentables is justified, but when it comes to hops he was much closer to the reality than many people give him credit for.

I spent some time comparing Dave Line's recipes with those of my own and was astonished to discover how accurate his recipes were, and how little some of the beers had changed in the twenty-odd intervening years between his book and mine. It is even more astonishing in light of the perceived greater secrecy of the brewers during his time. I have to assume that he probably asked more direct and pertinent questions than we did and got more complete answers; namely, he appears to have obtained the actual quantities used by the brewers concerned, whereas we, at best, got percentages and sometimes not even that.

Unfortunately, when people compare things like bitterness and then criticise, they tend to use Tinseth or the like as their benchmark. I have had quite a lot of this and have therefore made a special study of the Tinseth formula. It is miles out; often displaying errors in excess of 200%. It seriously overestimates the bitterness contributed by hops added for the full boil length and seriously underestimates the bitterness contributed by hops added later in the boil. Tinseth's utilisation figures vary from about 30% to about 12% depending upon S.G, whereas the reality is closer to 10% by the time that beer gets into cask or bottle. The best that I have seen in the professional literature is 16% under laboratory, pilot brewing conditions, but that was exceptional. Not only that, but utilisation varies by nowhere near that amount with respect to gravity in the real world and is highly recipe dependant anyway. The Tinseth numbers, at best, could be regarded as being ex-copper bitterness, not what actually ends up in the cask or bottle, but there are complications with that. Both Tinseth's, so called, boil time factor and gravity factor follow true exponential curves when plotted out. The reality is that neither of them follow exponential curves.

G.W.
User avatar
Graham_W
Brewer
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 18:48

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Graham_W » Mon Sep 21, 2015 16:47

Whoops, I hit the wrong button and posted the above prematurely. I could wax on about the Tinseth formula for several more paragraphs, but as I have already posted plenty of words, albeit accidentally, I will spare you the torture.

G.W.
User avatar
Graham_W
Brewer
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 18:48

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Kyle_T » Mon Sep 21, 2015 17:18

Thanks for that Graham, always a wealth of knowledge when you come along.

If he was as close as it sounds to the hop schedule I may well have to alter mine. It also makes me wonder if the recipe I obtained is from the first year or two of the 70's of his book was published in '78 and lists the bill as Goldings and Northern brewer.

I would also hazard a guess that if Dennis drank it in '73 and Dave Lines is the closest to what he remembers then I'm going to assume that mine is the period between 1970 - 1973.

I will email Geoff and see if he knows who supplied G.K's hops for those years and what the biggest crops were, this might also help narrow the year down.

Maybe the Fuggles crop was crap those years and dawned a new hop schedule based on the years harvest?

There is more work to be done.

Next Brew: AG#63.

Beer Brewed (2015): 136.4 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2016): 90.0 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2017): 20.0 Gallons

First AG Brewed: 11.4.2013.
https://theessexbrewer.wordpress.com
User avatar
Kyle_T
The Essex Brewer
 
Posts: 2487
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 14:27
Location: Chelmsford, Essex.

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Dennis King » Mon Sep 21, 2015 17:32

Kyle_T wrote:Thanks for that Graham, always a wealth of knowledge when you come along.

If he was as close as it sounds to the hop schedule I may well have to alter mine. It also makes me wonder if the recipe I obtained is from the first year or two of the 70's of his book was published in '78 and lists the bill as Goldings and Northern brewer.

I would also hazard a guess that if Dennis drank it in '73 and Dave Lines is the closest to what he remembers then I'm going to assume that mine is the period between 1970 - 1973.

I will email Geoff and see if he knows who supplied G.K's hops for those years and what the biggest crops were, this might also help narrow the year down.

Maybe the Fuggles crop was crap those years and dawned a new hop schedule based on the years harvest?

There is more work to be done.


I started drinking Abbot around 1974
User avatar
Dennis King
Moderator
 
Posts: 3465
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 17:20
Location: ESSEX.

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Kyle_T » Mon Sep 21, 2015 17:43

Dennis King wrote:At a guess I would say it changed mid 80`s. my 1st taste was circa 1973 maybe 74, could tell a lot of stories of nights on this beer, including getting arrested for drunk and disorderly on my stag night :oops: Some interesting link there Dr.D


I went with your earliest guesstimate. So shoot me :lol:

Next Brew: AG#63.

Beer Brewed (2015): 136.4 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2016): 90.0 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2017): 20.0 Gallons

First AG Brewed: 11.4.2013.
https://theessexbrewer.wordpress.com
User avatar
Kyle_T
The Essex Brewer
 
Posts: 2487
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 14:27
Location: Chelmsford, Essex.

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Dennis King » Mon Sep 21, 2015 20:11

Kyle_T wrote:
Dennis King wrote:At a guess I would say it changed mid 80`s. my 1st taste was circa 1973 maybe 74, could tell a lot of stories of nights on this beer, including getting arrested for drunk and disorderly on my stag night :oops: Some interesting link there Dr.D


I went with your earliest guesstimate. So shoot me :lol:


This thread is really testing worn out memory cells Kyle. I'm fairly sure I first drank it in 73, during the power cuts the pub I drank in at the time, a Watney's pub :oops: could not used their pumps. Although the beer was kegged the pumps were illuminated and would not work without electricity. The landlord was allowed to serve via gravity which ruled out Watney's so bought in other beers. He had a few in but I do remember Abbot but at 18 years old beer was beer and the brand unimportant. I know I saw the light in 74 after returning from abroad a new club had opened selling GK beers, Abbot became my religion and a life long love of good beer started.
User avatar
Dennis King
Moderator
 
Posts: 3465
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 17:20
Location: ESSEX.

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Kyle_T » Mon Sep 21, 2015 20:24

Dennis King wrote:
Kyle_T wrote:
Dennis King wrote:At a guess I would say it changed mid 80`s. my 1st taste was circa 1973 maybe 74, could tell a lot of stories of nights on this beer, including getting arrested for drunk and disorderly on my stag night :oops: Some interesting link there Dr.D


I went with your earliest guesstimate. So shoot me :lol:


This thread is really testing worn out memory cells Kyle. I'm fairly sure I first drank it in 73, during the power cuts the pub I drank in at the time, a Watney's pub :oops: could not used their pumps. Although the beer was kegged the pumps were illuminated and would not work without electricity. The landlord was allowed to serve via gravity which ruled out Watney's so bought in other beers. He had a few in but I do remember Abbot but at 18 years old beer was beer and the brand unimportant. I know I saw the light in 74 after returning from abroad a new club had opened selling GK beers, Abbot became my religion and a life long love of good beer started.


It must be reassuring to know you still have some cells left :lol: it's an arduous job but someone has to give you old folk a prod otherwise excellent historic beers would be lost for sure!

Next Brew: AG#63.

Beer Brewed (2015): 136.4 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2016): 90.0 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2017): 20.0 Gallons

First AG Brewed: 11.4.2013.
https://theessexbrewer.wordpress.com
User avatar
Kyle_T
The Essex Brewer
 
Posts: 2487
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 14:27
Location: Chelmsford, Essex.

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Dennis King » Mon Sep 21, 2015 20:32

Amazing the way the mind works, I can remember most of the different beers I've tried but......................it's the wife's birthday today and despite buying a card last week I totally forgot this morning. At least I was able to produce the card to prove I hadn't forgot.
User avatar
Dennis King
Moderator
 
Posts: 3465
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 17:20
Location: ESSEX.

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Joe1002 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 20:42

Well you work in the right industry to redeem yourself :lol:

A fine beer may be judged with only one sip, but it's better to be thoroughly sure.
User avatar
Joe1002
Moderator
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:01
Location: Essex

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Robsta » Mon Sep 21, 2015 21:27

Dont forget to send me a bottle kyle need to judge it and give you my comments lol

Image
______________________________________________________________________
Image
User avatar
Robsta
Brewer
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 21:57
Location: Nottingham

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Kyle_T » Mon Sep 21, 2015 22:59

Depending how it goes Rob I may well make this a donation for next year.

Next Brew: AG#63.

Beer Brewed (2015): 136.4 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2016): 90.0 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2017): 20.0 Gallons

First AG Brewed: 11.4.2013.
https://theessexbrewer.wordpress.com
User avatar
Kyle_T
The Essex Brewer
 
Posts: 2487
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 14:27
Location: Chelmsford, Essex.

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby paulg » Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:39

+1 to the comments by Dennis re abbot in the 70s & 80s
I also have the dave line book I bought when I first started and agree the recipe when I tried it back then was close.
Aleman is correct in that the hops we get now are vastly better than in the 70s.I remember buying them from a homebrew shop in ipswich straight from a packet sat on the shelf in full daylight/shop lighting.

maybe ill also revisit this brew, although last time I drank it it gave me a splitting headache from only a couple of pints ,never did that in the 70s
User avatar
paulg
Brewer
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 08:04
Location: corfu,greece formerly essex/suffolk border

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Graham_W » Tue Sep 22, 2015 13:30

Kyle_T wrote:If he was as close as it sounds to the hop schedule I may well have to alter mine. It also makes me wonder if the recipe I obtained is from the first year or two of the 70's of his book was published in '78 and lists the bill as Goldings and Northern brewer.

Use your own judgement. What I could have said in one sentence was that if Dave Line is being judged by the prophesies of Tinseth, then he is probably being dealt an injustice. Using Tinseth, or most of the other formulae, to determine bitterness will result in home brewed beers being under-hopped compared to the commercial counterpart. It is true that hops available to home brewers were in pretty poor condition years ago, I remember sorry-looking brown things, loosely packed in clear plastic bags, just labelled "Hops" with no variety, leave alone alpha acid, specified on the labels, often displayed in the shop window in full sunlight. I also remember the numerous arguments that I've had with shop proprietors over the condition of them; they knew no better, poor things, and this was long after Dave Line's time.

I am sure that Dave Line would have been aware of that and guarded against it. After all, he came up with the concept of Alpha Acid Units but he seems to have abandoned it by the time he came to write his recipe book. In fact one of the best home brew shops of the time was in Southampton, close to where he lived. This shop kept its hops in the traditional compressed hop pockets, in a separate, cool (but not cold) room and you were served directly from the pocket.

G.W.
User avatar
Graham_W
Brewer
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 18:48

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Aleman » Tue Sep 22, 2015 13:55

While I accept that Tinseth's formula has it's flaws . . .especially when taken to extremes of gravity and time in boil, it is one way of estimating / predicting / educated guessing / prophesying the effects on bitterness depending on time in boil etc.

Assuming a flat 20% for bittering hops (at 90 / 60 minutes), and Zero for 15 minute / 0 minute steeped for 30 minutes also strikes me as much as guesswork as anything else. There are a vast amount of variables involved in hop utilisation, and even Glenn remarks on this. I was lucky enough many years ago when I first came across his formula to have access to a lab, that enabled me to determine IBU levels over time during the boil, and tweak the Tinseth fudge factors to suit my kettle. This actually produced good results for me as long as I stayed within a sensible range of gravities . . .sadly I no longer have that kettle, and my beers are less bitter than I would now expect.

There is no perfect way to determine the potential bitterness of a known quantity of hop with a 'known' bitterness, boiled at a known gravity for a known period of time, all the formulae have flaws, and the best recommendation is to pick one, and learn, by brewing, what the results mean for you on your kit, then tweak the recommendations of the formulae to produce the effects you want. The downside of that means brewing lots of the same recipe over and over tweaking volumes, gravities and hop quantities . . .and having to drink the results of course.

I will also agree that if you have a recipe from a ledger, like the Durden Park books, then use the quantities specified in the recipe, otherwise you are not brewing the beer in the ledger. The number of people who actually knew/know what those beers tasted like is getting fewer and fewer, you are going to be in the right ball park. There are too many variations in ingredients to produce anything more than an approximation anyway . .. even if you were to get samples of hops from the same hop pocket as the brewery, malt from the brewery grain store, and scale down from their quantities to ours, you would still produce an approximation to the commercial beer.

please note:The use of punctuation, bold, underlining, italics, and different sized type, follows the convention used in writing, for many years, to place emphasis on the point being made, and to highlight the importance of that point in the opinion of the author. It is not the intention of the author to shout, if that was the case the author would adopt the, much more recent, convention of using all capital letters.
Albert Einstein wrote:Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
User avatar
Aleman
Curmudgeonly Brewer
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 00:28
Location: Mashing In Blackpool, Lancs, UK

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Kyle_T » Tue Sep 22, 2015 23:46

After having a think I have decided to combine elements of both the ledger recipe and Dave Lines along with the information provided by Dennis and other Abbot drinkers. Whether or not it will be similar to the beer of 70's & 80's I cannot say but I'm sure I know some people who will be willing to give a verdict :D

This is what I will brew sometime this week or next:

Greene King Abbot Ale 1970/80
11C. Strong Bitter (English Pale Ale)

Recipe Specs
----------------
Batch Size (L): 23.0
Total Grain (kg): 4.930
Total Hops (g): 81.00
Original Gravity (OG): 1.054 (°P): 13.3
Final Gravity (FG): 1.012 (°P): 3.1
Alcohol by Volume (ABV): 5.54 %
Colour (SRM): 12.8 (EBC): 25.3
Bitterness (IBU): 36.6 (Tinseth)
Balance (BU:GU): 0.68
Brewhouse Efficiency (%): 80
Boil Time (Minutes): 90

Grain Bill
----------------
4.081 kg Pale Malt (82.78%)
0.310 kg Invert Sugar No. 3 (6.29%)
0.310 kg Flaked Maize (6.29%)
0.185 kg Crystal 30 (3.75%)
0.044 kg Chocolate (0.89%)

Hop Bill
----------------
20.0 g Challenger Leaf (7.3% Alpha) @ 90 Minutes (Boil) (0.9 g/L)
36.0 g East Kent Golding Leaf (5% Alpha) @ 90 Minutes (Boil) (1.6 g/L)
15.0 g Fuggles Leaf (5.6% Alpha) @ 15 Minutes (Boil) (0.7 g/L)
10.0 g East Kent Golding Leaf (5% Alpha) @ 0 Days (Dry Hop) (0.4 g/L)

Misc Bill
----------------
1/2 Protofloc Tablet @ 15 Minutes (Boil)

Four step mash:

Mash In: 60°C
Step 1: 60°C for 5 Minutes
Step 2: 63°C for 40 Minutes
Step 3: 65°C for 50 Minutes
Step 4: 78°C for 40 Minutes

Fermented at 21°C with Wibblers yeast for 4 days.
Lower to 13°C 24 hours after skimming yeast.
Lower to 10°C 24 hours before racking.

Recipe Generated with BrewMate

Next Brew: AG#63.

Beer Brewed (2015): 136.4 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2016): 90.0 Gallons
Beer Brewed (2017): 20.0 Gallons

First AG Brewed: 11.4.2013.
https://theessexbrewer.wordpress.com
User avatar
Kyle_T
The Essex Brewer
 
Posts: 2487
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 14:27
Location: Chelmsford, Essex.

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Graham_W » Wed Sep 23, 2015 14:16

Aleman wrote:While I accept that Tinseth's formula has it's flaws . . .especially when taken to extremes of gravity and time in boil, it is one way of estimating / predicting / educated guessing / prophesying the effects on bitterness depending on time in boil etc.


Would you kindly point out the bits of Tinseth that are not flawed.
An easily verified example of the accuracy of the Tinseth's prophesy happens to be a beer brewed by Crookedeyeboy which he had tested and published the results on Jim's. I did some calculations on it. I won't go into the recipe details here but it was a 1040 beer: measured bitterness = 48EBU; Tinseth = 80EBU; error =67%; actual utilisation = 16.4%; Tinseth utilisation = 27%; error obviously similar. That is not an approximation - it is an abomination - and that is the among the more accurate examples of Tinseth's performance.

There are quite a few published examples of home brewed beers that have had the bitterness tested. Basic Brewing Radio is a good source - almost every discussion involving hops has a laboratory measurement performed at some point. Some years ago, BBR even had a whole programme devoted to the accuracy of these formulae. They had about six beers brewed and tested, and compared the measured results with the predictions of the half-a-dozen utilisation formulae that are extant. The errors were astonishingly high, but the recipes were too complicated for me to do any meaningful correlation on them; multiple hop additions and the like, and none of the formulae are any good at that; the greater the number of hop additions the greater is the error with all of them; seriously huge errors at low boil times.

The American home brewing magazines often have bitterness tests done. It is no big deal whenever you see a published recipe that has been tested to seize it and do a few calculations on it, and then see how accurate or not Tinseth is. I only bother with Tinseth these days, because that is the one that most people use. You will often encounter errors of around 200%

Aleman wrote:Assuming a flat 20% for bittering hops (at 90 / 60 minutes), and Zero for 15 minute / 0 minute steeped for 30 minutes also strikes me as much as guesswork as anything else.

Yes, I was guilty of using a fixed utilisation of 20% in my first recipe book and I concede that closer to 15% would have been better, but 20% is a nice round number and simplifies the calculation a bit for the beginner. It was not guesswork but a carefully considered action; I still feel that a fixed utilisation is a far better idea for home brewers than the Tinseth fantasy. I will point out that if Crookedeyeboy had used 20% rather than Tinseth, the prediction would have been 54 EBU, which is somewhat closer to the reality, and considerably more acceptable than Tinseth's 80 EBU.

Realise that when an EBU is quoted by a brewer, it is the EBU of the beer in cask or bottle, at the point when it first becomes ready to drink. Tinseth numbers, ignoring his other errors and misconceptions, are wort bitterness; it is the ex-copper bitterness and does not represent what ends up in the bottle. There is yet more manipulation to be done to account for the fermentation and fining losses. Not a lot of people know that. People invariably fall into the trap of thinking that Tinseth-derived bitterness is beer bitterness, but it isn't. Tinseth should have made this perfectly plain, but he didn't, and that is his biggest error; it is a sin, in fact, because it has misled so many people. Had he admitted to that, or better still, had he included a factor to compensate for it, I may well have thought that the Tinseth formula was good enough and would probably not have delved deeper and uncovered his other errors and misconceptions.

If I recall correctly, it was mainly your persistent assertion that Wheeler's recipes were over-hopped that persuaded me, over subsequent revisions to gradually increase the hop utilisation to come closer into alignment with what people expected rather than what I believed was right. An action that I now deeply regret, because it turns out that I was right all along and my recipes have consistently come closer to reality than Tinseth or any of the others have ever come, particularly my early recipes. I had thought and hoped that perhaps your assertions were based upon experience and a practised palate, but perhaps you are just too easily influenced by transatlantic bunkum.

Aleman wrote:There are a vast amount of variables involved in hop utilisation, and even Glenn remarks on this.

For obvious reasons I have to reserve judgement on Glen Tinseth's knowledge of hop utilisation. I think that his formula displays a degree of naivety that is astonishing for something that has gained such wide acceptance. What is more astonishing is that nobody seems to have noticed. People have noticed, of course, the wide discrepancy between the predictions and the real world, but they seem to have never bothered to determine the major reason why and just assume that it is an acceptable artefact without looking any further. The ex-copper vs beer bitterness thing is fundamental in my view. Had this been widely known and accepted the wide errors in implementation would have been far less severe and I might not have noticed or even cared.

Of course when one starts to investigate why his formula gives results that are so far out, one uncovers other flaws, even though the major reason for the errors is fundamental. His formula is based on a number of false assumptions. Some he should never have taken on board, others were common thinking among many of us at the time and probably he should not be blamed for those, but he could have been more diligent and should have understood the way that people were likely to use his formula. Home brewers are not particularly interested in ex-copper bitterness, commercial brewers are, but home brewers are more concerned about what ends up in the cask or bottle. If I can unravel some of the anomalies in his formula with my limited research facilities and abilities, someone who was apparently resident at a university at that time should have been able to have done much better. Most of the important variables are understood well enough, although there are some others that are not.

Aleman wrote:I was lucky enough many years ago when I first came across his formula to have access to a lab, that enabled me to determine IBU levels over time during the boil, and tweak the Tinseth fudge factors to suit my kettle. This actually produced good results for me as long as I stayed within a sensible range of gravities . . .sadly I no longer have that kettle, and my beers are less bitter than I would now expect.

When I was writing my first book, I had the help and assistance of the laboratories and staff of English Hops Ltd, which is (perhaps was) the grower's co-operative organisation that rose out of the ashes of the old government Hop Marketing Board that was closed down under EEC rules. If I had had the knowledge then that I have now, I would have asked different questions and got them to lead me in a different direction. They probably have the answers to all my doubts and questions at their finger tips. There must have been vast amounts of research performed on this subject over the years; it is just knowing what research papers exist and gaining access to them.

Aleman wrote:There is no perfect way to determine the potential bitterness of a known quantity of hop with a 'known' bitterness, boiled at a known gravity for a known period of time, all the formulae have flaws...

True, but I am convinced that we can do an awful lot better. It will take a tremendous number of trial brews and lab tests in a controlled manner to manage it. I do not have the time, energy, inclination, or the money for that matter, to do it myself. It would be a great improvement to simply adjust it so that it represents beer bitterness rather than the wort bitterness. Further improvement could be achieved by substituting his formula with something that follows realistic curves. When you analyse and dissect his formula it becomes clear that he assumes that both the boil-time factor and gravity factor follow exponential curves (e^x), but that is not the reality. His formula, as published, is atrociously laid out and this is not immediately apparent; maths is obviously not his strong point.

Aleman wrote:...and the best recommendation is to pick one, and learn, by brewing, what the results mean for you on your kit, then tweak the recommendations of the formulae to produce the effects you want.

I do not subscribe to the theory that: "We know that it is wrong, but if we are all wrong together it doesn't matter". If the formula does not closely approximate EBU as it stands we might as well use some arbitrary rule, or a fixed utilisation. Even my updated version of Dave Line's AAUs which I call NAUs - Normalised Alpha Units - would be more consistent. Any tweaking should be only for very fine adjustments, not as an attempt to make something that is patently wrong fit the real world. Because he assumes that the boil time factor follows an exponential law, and it doesn't, you get a positive error at one end of the boil-time scale, and a negative error at the other. This means that the tweaked curve and the real-world curve can only meet at one point. Of course this implies that at one specific O.G. in combination with one specific boil time the Tinseth formula will be spot on, but that is not good enough.

Indeed, of the calculations that I have done on beers of known recipe and known measured bitterness, some of the predictions come out with positive errors, and others with negative errors. This would seem to imply that that the predictions are hovering around the centre point, but the extremes are too wide and too random to be trusted. In short, the formula is unstable. It seems that the main instability comes about with multiple hop editions and late hops. To me I think that there is probably a world of difference in results between adding hops for fifteen minutes in a fresh unhopped sweet wort, and adding them for fifteen minutes after the wort has already been boiled for an hour or more and is already full of hop material in various stages modification. The formula assumes the former, the reality is the latter. The formula behaves the wrong way round, or at least we are attempting to use it the wrong way round.

Of course with there being wide swings in error of both positive and negative magnitude, it is likely that certain combinations of hop additions and boil times will produce predictions that are fairly close to the reality, but that will be more by accident than design and somewhat random.

Aleman wrote:I will also agree that if you have a recipe from a ledger, like the Durden Park books, then use the quantities specified in the recipe, otherwise you are not brewing the beer in the ledger. The number of people who actually knew/know what those beers tasted like is getting fewer and fewer, you are going to be in the right ball park. There are too many variations in ingredients to produce anything more than an approximation anyway . .. even if you were to get samples of hops from the same hop pocket as the brewery, malt from the brewery grain store, and scale down from their quantities to ours, you would still produce an approximation to the commercial beer.

A more obvious downside is that if the BJCP states that a British bitter is typically 30 EBU, and an American uses Tinseth to achieve that bitterness, he will be miles out and he won't know any better. Also keep in mind that even if we ignore that the formula follows the wrong shaped curves, and assume it to be reasonably accurate, it still does not represent what ends up in the bottle. It is ex-copper bitterness, and you would still have to subtract a fair number of bitterness units from the Tinseth figure to determine final bitterness. Tinseth as good as admitted this in a roundabout, non-committal manner in a reply to an email sent by someone on Jim's and posted on that forum. Had he admitted this much earlier, a lot of confusion would have been saved. I've searched for the post, but I can't find it.

G.W.
User avatar
Graham_W
Brewer
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 18:48

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby BarnsleyBrewer » Wed Sep 23, 2015 17:43

Wow, great thread, all the big guns offering excellent information... :clap:

BB

"Brewing Fine Ales in Barnsley Since 1984"
- - - - - - - 30 years (1984 - 2014)- - - - - - -
Pints Brewed in 2017......... 416
Pints brewed in 2016.. 208
Pints brewed in 2015.. 624
Pints brewed in 2014.. 832
User avatar
BarnsleyBrewer
Brewer
 
Posts: 1341
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 14:12
Location: Wombwell, South Yorkshire

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby Graham_W » Wed Sep 23, 2015 20:09

I only posted because the thread happened to be touching one of my pet subjects. I won't be making a habit of it.

Attempting to tell the world-wide home brewing movement that they have been doing it wrong all these years tends to put a few noses out of joint.

G.W.
User avatar
Graham_W
Brewer
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 18:48

Re: Greene King Abbot Ale

Postby FUBAR » Wed Sep 23, 2015 20:24

BarnsleyBrewer wrote:Wow, great thread, all the big guns offering excellent information... :clap:

BB



Yes BB, I have been reading this with great interest :clap: .

I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me- Winston Churchill.
User avatar
FUBAR
Brewer
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:09

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest