[Robert]

I haven't looked at any of Ron's stuff.   But looking for something else in the Wahl-Henius Handybook (1901,) I happened to glance at a table in the section on brewing in England showing hopping rates for various beers.  It gives Imperial stout at 14-15 lbs per qtr of malt, translated to 2.5-3 lbs per American barrel (31.5 US gal) and a wort density of 20-25% Ballling (=°P.)  For Russian export, 16 lbs per qtr, 3.25 lbs per US bbl, and above 25% B.  This puts us in the range of 1.5 oz/gallon on the homebrew scale.  Generously allowing 4% alpha acids in the hops (I think that is quite generous for hops up to a couple of years old stored at cellar temperature,  as the best hops were reserved for pale ales) this will indeed, back of the envelope style, give a *calculated* (Tinseth or Rager) IBU value of easily 120, assuming all the hops boiled at least 60-90 minutes.  Which is bull, but -- it jibes nicely with the value given in the OP's recipe.


EDIT -- CORRECTION -- My apologies.  Forgoing the back of the envelope and actually doing the calculations properly, I get high 80s Tinseth.   Anyway, we know they used a $#!? ton of hops.  Which we already knew.

FURTHER EDIT and note to OP:  I still can't get anything close to 120 out of the recipe as given, using the standard tables.  60s at best.  Is it possible a hop was omitted from the recipe as published?   I look forward to hearing whatever response you get from The Kernel.

[Robert]

We need more information.  What is the recipe?

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/homebrew-recipe/the-kernel-imperial-brown-stout-london-1856/

I notice another curious thing about this recipe.  It's meant to be an 1856 recipe.  It contains anachronistic malts, Munich and crystal,  which might be chalked up to the brewers' artistic license.   But coming from that slice of history tucked between the Corn Laws and the Free Mash Tun Act, that sugar absolutely does not belong there!  Though perhaps it helps to dry it out and sharpen it up in the absence of vatting?

[Philip McCaugherty]

Got a reply from the Brewery, guys.

Hi Phil,

We calculate about 100IBU for that beer.  But above 80 IBU you can't
really judge IBUs much at all, and in such a big beer with a high
finishing gravity it actually does not even taste that bitter (to my
mind, at least).  Though you do have a roasted malt bitterness
accompanying that from the hops.  We just packed the latest batch
yesterday - it makes the brewery smell amazing.

All the best,
Evin

[Philip McCaugherty]

And this was the original response when I enquired about the clone recipe.

Hi,

It is sort of right.

We use:

Pale Marris 78%
Brown 10%
Black 8%
Amber 4%

We then use sugar, at 8% the total weight of grain, if that makes sense. A blend of white, light brown and dark brown.

We use no crystal malts. No cara, or carafa. It is a bitter, 'dry' beer.

We add most of the hops at the beginning of the boil, and sometimes some more at 30 mins, but nothing after that. We also only boil for 60mins now. We bitter to a theoretical 90.

We mash very low (for us) at 65C, which is 3.5C lower than our pale ale mash temp. We aim for a finishing gravity of 1.022-1.025, with a start as close to 1.096 as possible. We have to run off less than normal. We stop the run off at around 13P, so there is plenty left in the mash, but any more 'low' gravity runnings will lower the finally gravity of the finished wort.

We add the sugar to the boil, when you add protofloc. We use finings on all the beers as the protein can inhibit the yeast. We use US05 (shock horror!) for our imperial stout as the pitch rate for the size batch we have is just too much yeast and we rarely have enough to crop to pitch more than 100L in one go.

That is a lot of 'we this, we that' but I hope it is helpful. If you have anymore questions, shoot them through. And if it all goes wrong, rdwhahb!

Cheers,
Ben

[Kevin]

We need more information.  What is the recipe?

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/homebrew-recipe/the-kernel-imperial-brown-stout-london-1856/

I notice another curious thing about this recipe.  It's meant to be an 1856 recipe.  It contains anachronistic malts, Munich and crystal,  which might be chalked up to the brewers' artistic license.   But coming from that slice of history tucked between the Corn Laws and the Free Mash Tun Act, that sugar absolutely does not belong there!  Though perhaps it helps to dry it out and sharpen it up in the absence of vatting?

Definitely brewers artistic license.

I did do some research on Ron's site for Barclay Perkins Russian Imperial Stouts and the grist for the 1850's was only Pale (63.5%), Brown (22.56%), Amber (11.19%),  and Chocolate (2.75%) malt.

The hopping rates were 15.19 pounds per quarter | 9.6 pounds per brl.

[Robert]

^^^^
Chocolate seems like an oddity!  I see it was black in the 1848 I found.  But Barclay Perkins always did embrace a wider range of dark malts than most London brewers.  Hopping looks unchanged right to the turn of the 20th century at least.

[Robert]

^^^^
Chocolate seems like an oddity!  I see it was black in the 1848 I found.  But Barclay Perkins always did embrace a wider range of dark malts than most London brewers.  Hopping looks unchanged right to the turn of the 20th century at least.

Did get to some poking around on Ron's website.   In the 1860s it's still pale, amber, brown and black.  Chocolate seems out of place.  And I was reminded of a couple things I'd forgotten.  One, that Barclays always added the black malt to the copper boil.  And two, that while of all their brown beers -- various porters and stouts -- IBSt was the strongest, at ~1100, at this period at least it had actually the lowest hopping rate at 15-16 lbs per qtr.  Can you imagine that some had over 20? The mind boggles.


The addition of the black malt, finely ground, just before knockout was a trick to get the full color contribution without any roast character.  Brown malt actually gives a very rich but not roasted character, as does amber -- especially after 10-12 months vatting, these beers would have emerged with little if any roast character.   Or hop character for that matter.  They'd have been dry and malty for sure.  Any "reproduction" we make that hews closely to the original recipe will likely bear faint resemblance to the original beer.  I wonder if the inclusion of malts like crystal and Munich, along with a big portion of sugar and a much reduced hop rate, might not actually get us closer to the end result?  Just musing.

[Kevin]

^^^^
Chocolate seems like an oddity!  I see it was black in the 1848 I found.  But Barclay Perkins always did embrace a wider range of dark malts than most London brewers.  Hopping looks unchanged right to the turn of the 20th century at least.

You are correct. It was black, not chocolate.

[Philip McCaugherty]

Thanks for all the input, guys. It has been a great help. Hopefully I can do this beer justice when I have a bash at it.

Cheers

[Philip McCaugherty]

Just an update, guys. I kegged this beer about a month ago. Left it at room temp for a week and then stuck it in the fridge. The initial taste was pretty sweet and not what I was expecting. It had a kind of toffee / date sweetness. Not unpleasant at all but not like the original. Since then it has improved immensely. Those sweet notes have mellowed and the bitterness from the CTZ has become more pronounced. It tastes fantastic, in my humble opinion, and I will try to get a bottle of the original for a proper comparison check.

My tweaked version of the recipe (kindly assisted by the head brewer at The Kernel) is below. I added lactose for mouthfeel and it worked out really well but it did throw off the FG and the ABV finished around 8.2%.

https://www.brewersfriend.com/homebrew/recipe/view/685701/the-kernel-imperial-brown-stout-clone

[hopfenundmalz]

I must have been on the road to HomebrewCon when this was first posted.

The hops used back then probably had lower Alpha. Hop cultivation and harvest time can influence Alpha.

There is another calculator for IBU, by Mark Garetz.

When the IBU was developed, it was for light lagers. The saturation that happens was not comprehended. Late hopping and whirlpool hops were not included. Dry hopping was not studied.

The original Pliny the Elder recipe Vinnie gave out resulted in a calculation of 320 IBU. Just view that as a number from a computer, not reality. Later versions calculated at more around 200 or so. In the Zymurgy article he said it tests at 90 IBU in the Lab.

One of my Executives used to say "Computer Models are always wrong, but they can be useful".  He was referring to the models not giving exact results under all conditions, but useful in making directional decisions. Validation in hardware was required at the end.

End of stream of consciousness post.

[BrewBama]

And this was the original response when I enquired about the clone recipe.

Hi,

It is sort of right.

We use:

Pale Marris 78%
Brown 10%
Black 8%
Amber 4%

We then use sugar, at 8% the total weight of grain, if that makes sense. A blend of white, light brown and dark brown.

We use no crystal malts. No cara, or carafa. It is a bitter, 'dry' beer.

We add most of the hops at the beginning of the boil, and sometimes some more at 30 mins, but nothing after that. We also only boil for 60mins now. We bitter to a theoretical 90.

We mash very low (for us) at 65C, which is 3.5C lower than our pale ale mash temp. We aim for a finishing gravity of 1.022-1.025, with a start as close to 1.096 as possible. We have to run off less than normal. We stop the run off at around 13P, so there is plenty left in the mash, but any more 'low' gravity runnings will lower the finally gravity of the finished wort.

We add the sugar to the boil, when you add protofloc. We use finings on all the beers as the protein can inhibit the yeast. We use US05 (shock horror!) for our imperial stout as the pitch rate for the size batch we have is just too much yeast and we rarely have enough to crop to pitch more than 100L in one go.

That is a lot of 'we this, we that' but I hope it is helpful. If you have anymore questions, shoot them through. And if it all goes wrong, rdwhahb!

Cheers,
Ben

I love the open kimono attitude this brewer takes with respect to helping a homebrewer with the recipe.  I often come across recipes for commercial beers and wonder how close they are.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Northern_Brewer]

It's meant to be an 1856 recipe...But coming from that slice of history tucked between the Corn Laws and the Free Mash Tun Act, that sugar absolutely does not belong there!

Not true - it's a common misunderstanding that sugar was banned until the FMTA, but in fact the Caribbean sugar industry successfully lobbied to get the law changed on 23 February 1847, from which time sugar (but not other adjuncts) was allowed in beer, with an official conversion rate to calculate the equivalent malt on which tax would be paid.

What seems to have happened on the ground is a brief period of maybe a decade where brewers experimented with sugar, but then for whatever reason (Crimean war taxes?, feedback?) most of them dropped it until 1880, although it was still permitted.

[Robert]

It's meant to be an 1856 recipe...But coming from that slice of history tucked between the Corn Laws and the Free Mash Tun Act, that sugar absolutely does not belong there!

Not true - it's a common misunderstanding that sugar was banned until the FMTA, but in fact the Caribbean sugar industry successfully lobbied to get the law changed on 23 February 1847, from which time sugar (but not other adjuncts) was allowed in beer, with an official conversion rate to calculate the equivalent malt on which tax would be paid.

What seems to have happened on the ground is a brief period of maybe a decade where brewers experimented with sugar, but then for whatever reason (Crimean war taxes?, feedback?) most of them dropped it until 1880, although it was still permitted.

Thank you for that clarification.   I was unaware of the 1847 act.  It is interesting that, looking through Ron Pattinson's recipes, one does get the impression that sugar was absent from the scene prior to the time of the FMTA.  I do wonder why it was not more readily embraced at an earlier date.  Was the tax rate on sugar in fact adjusted to pay for the Crimean War?   (It would, unlike grain or beer itself, seem to me like the kind of thing governments like to class as a general luxury good, ripe for taxation when an infusion of cash is needed.) 

[Northern_Brewer]

I'm not sure of the details, but I think economics played a big part, contrary to the usual guff that sugar was used as a cost-cutting measure.

The government certainly had a lot of spending on the military during the (now largely forgotten) arms race with the French in the 1850s, followed by the Crimean war, so it wouldn't surprise me if taxes on luxuries had gone up then, I'm not sure what the facts are though.