# How To - Mild?



## Gout (3/2/05)

Brewers i need a low alc beer, as i am only allowed 2 std drinks per night - 5 nights of a given week. so rather than one glass i thought brew a light beer and have 3 glasses 

So i thought a mild might be a goer, does anyone know much about these? if so how does the bellow look, based on Ray Daniels text


A ProMash Recipe Report

Recipe Specifics
----------------

Batch Size (L): 20.00 Wort Size (L): 20.00
Total Grain (kg): 2.32
Anticipated OG: 1.027 Plato: 6.9
Anticipated SRM: 12.8
Anticipated IBU: 16.9
Brewhouse Efficiency: 75 %
Wort Boil Time: 60 Minutes


Grain/Extract/Sugar

% Amount Name Origin Potential SRM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
86.2 2.00 kg. Powells Ale Malt Victoria 1.038 5
10.8 0.25 kg. JWM Crystal 140 Australia 1.035 74
3.0 0.07 kg. JWM Chocolate Malt Australia 1.032 381

Potential represented as SG per pound per gallon.


Hops

Amount Name Form Alpha IBU Boil Time
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.00 g. Goldings - E.K. Pellet 4.52 14.9 60 min.
14.00 g. Goldings - E.K. Pellet 4.52 2.1 10 min.


----------



## jgriffin (3/2/05)

I'm definately no expert on light beers, but I wonder if substituting the crystal for melanoidin might make up for the lack of malt overall.


----------



## PostModern (3/2/05)

Being a Munich-head, I'd substitute 1 kg of the pale malt for something like 900g of Light Munich and 200g of roasted oats. But I really like Munich.


----------



## neonmeate (3/2/05)

alternative to munich would be maris otter - gives it a good thick maltiness.
melanoidin is a good idea too

also you might consider home-toasting some brown malt or amber malt to give it some mid-range toasty/biscuity flavours. i made a mild with some hometoasted brown malt (following instructions from howtobrew.com) and it had a great malt aroma. you can also buy the stuff but i like the hometoasted version better. depends though you might like your mild more sweet and tooheys old like.


----------



## warrenlw63 (3/2/05)

Grainbill sounds good to me Gout.  

Your only problem may be your low OG (even by low mild standards). Milds usually sway to about 1.030-1.035 OG. You'll probably wind up with a very thin-tasting beer.

I've had good results with milds that finish on the sweet side. I achieve this with a low-attenuating yeast. Wyeast 1968 (ESB) is pretty good. Leaves the beer with some body and gives you the impression you're drinking a bigger beer.

Warren -


----------



## Snow (4/2/05)

Looks ok, but definitely go for the Maris Otter and pick up your OG to 1.032-35. Mash at 68-70 to bring up the body. Yeast is important for the style - do you have London Ale yeast? I've made a great mild/ordinary bitter with it. I would probably throw in some goldings at flameout, too, just for that extra hop complexity (maybe 10g). Depends on your preference.

Cheers - Snow.


----------



## MAH (4/2/05)

Hi Gout

Milds can be deceptively hard to brew. I've had quite a few attempts and I'm still not where I would like to be with this beer. The trick is getting good flavour into a beer that uses hardly any malt. 

What I've learnt so far:
1) aim for around 1.032, anything less than this and the beer is very thin
2) mash fairly high 68-70, otherwise you will get a very thin beer, because again with such little malt you need a fair bit of unfermentable sugars for body
3) don't over do the crystal, around 100gms for 20 litres is good, and you are getting residual sugars from the higher mash temps
4) don't be afraid of the darker grains, you need these to balance the unfermentable sugars. I prefer chocolate and use around 100gms for 20 litres
5) add a proportion of darker malt like munich. I've settled on melanoidin. Have been experimenting with between 250-500gms. Melanoidin is pretty distinctive and a little goes along way. My theory is that milds often use mild malt which is darker than ale malt, so some munich etc helps (maybe I'll try Vienna as the base grain for an experiment)
6) Keep your IBU's down to about 15. The roasted malts you use will give a sense of bitterness, so you don't need a lot of hops
7) dont be afraid to ferment at the top of the yeasts range. With such little malt you need as much character from the yeast as you can get.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Gout (4/2/05)

thanks guys all good help! i would like to up the gravity but since the alc content is my main reason for brewing this beer, i cant up it to much. However i was directed to:
http://byo.com/feature/66.html
so i might up the gravity, then heat off some alc, and hop addition to the wort just before the cooling to get some hops back in there

Please note i am not saying this is how to brew great beers, i just need a beer that i (after all the AG beer) can drink thats low in alc. 

the boil off alc method will alow a higher gravity, and takeing the alc out will also thicken the beer


----------



## MAH (4/2/05)

Gout

3 glasses of a 3.2% mild would surely be equivalent to your restricted 2 standard drinks. By my claculations a 275ml glass of 3.2% ABV beer is the equivalent of 0.68 standard drinks, so 3 glasses would 2.03 standard drinks.

Don't go to the effort of making an AG beer to ruin it by heating it to reduce the alcohol. That's just sacreligous!

Don't do it!
MAH


----------



## Gout (4/2/05)

some have claimed it was quiet good using this method, i agree it does not sit well with me but... maybe i should try 5Lt , and keep the rest as the real deal!

eg brew 25Lt (20Lt for real drinking, and 5Lt to test the theroy)
mmm beeer ... DOH


----------



## RobW (4/2/05)

Hi Gout

I spotted this browsing for recipes. Food for thought?

Designated Driver Dunkel
a non-alcoholic amber

By Tim Beauchamp ([email protected])


6.5 Lbs Amber Malt Extract 
.25 Lbs Crystal Malt 10L 
14 HBU Cascade Hops 
3 HBU Mt. Hood Hops Whole Leaf 
Wyeast American Ale

Makes 5 U.S. Gallons 
O.G. 1.040 
F.G. 1.008 (before boiling off the alcohol)

The night before brewing, boil 2.5 gallon of water to a boil for 5 minutes. Then take off the heat, cool and put into the refrigerator or in an ice chest with ice overnight to chill.

Just before it is time to brew, pour the cold (boiled) water into the primary. Fill the kettle with 2.5 gallons of water and start heating. 

In a sauce pan, steep Crystal Malt in cheesecloth bag for 20 minutes in 1 quart 160 degree water. Add liquid to 2.5 gal water boiling in the brew kettle with the extract. Bring to a vigorous boil for 15 minutes. Add the Cascade hops and continue the boil for 45 minutes. Remove from heat and cool quickly to 100 degrees and then add to the cold water in the primary. Shake it to oxygenate it well. You can check the temp. It should be right around 70 degrees and ready to pitch. Pitch the yeast and let it ferment.

After 6 days, rack into the secondary carboy. With the Wyeast Amer. Ale, I still had a noticeable ferment going. in the secondary. 

On Day 12, take the Mt. Hood hops and tie them into a cheese cloth satchel. Bring 1 qt. of water to a boil and add the hop packet. Let it continue to boil for 2 minutes, if the hops are compressed pretty tight from the vacuum sealed bag, you may have to prod it a bit to get the boiling water into the inside. Remove from heat and put the pot into an ice bath until it is nice and cool. Pour the whole thing, Hop packet and all, into a sterilized glass or plastic container and put into the refrigerator until it is needed. You will use it at kegging time.

On day 16, siphon the beer from the secondary into the brewpot. Careful to keep the racking tube above the sediment. Begin heating on a medium heat monitoring the temperature. Ethanol boils at a lower temp than water so it will stabilize temperature at about 180 degrees as the latent heat of the alcohol uses up the heat energy. Keep the heat at a level that the boil is consistent but not violent. Watch the temp. As the volume of alcohol reduces, the temperature will rise. When the temp has reached 210 degrees, most of the alcohol has boiled away and the a bit more will evaporate as it cools. Have a window open, you will be boiling off a quart of alcohol. You will notice that the boil will almost instantaneously turn from a very fine bubble foam to a rolling boil at the point that the alcohol has boiled out

Note, if you are above sea level, these temps will be lower. Don't wait to hit 210 degrees or by the time you do, you will have some real malty syrup for your pancakes.

As soon as the boil is done, cool quickly and keg. Add the Hop water that you made a few days earlier, leaving the hop packet behind. Carbonate artificially in the keg and let settle for a week. You could prime and repitch to carbonate in bottles but that would add alcohol to the beer but at most, it would be .5%

Notes: This beer turned out excellent. Noticeable flavor absent that I assume was the alcohol. Also, the viscosity in your mouth was different than an beer containing alcohol. And the beer was a bit hazy, like chill haze, but being that it was a dark beer, it was not very obvious. Next time I make it, and I plan on that soon, I will probably add some dextrin or increase the Crystal malt to closer to .5 lbs just for more body and steep the finishing hops for a much longer time. The temperature that they were steeped at probably was too cold for good hop utilization. Also, I will not hop at all with the original wort. I have a feeling that the haze is partially from the reboiling of the hopped beer. I will boil the hops in the same water that I will steep the finishing hops in and get a good 45 minute boil with them.


----------



## Darren (4/2/05)

Howdy Gout,
One solution is to (flame-suit on) dilute your standard beer with some mineral water or such. You would have to be honest to yourself though and make sure you did dilute it appropriately
I wonder how many breweries actually produce their milds by diluting high gravity beer post-ferment (Most I would say)
chhers
Darren


----------



## Gout (4/2/05)

hmmm all so interesting, thanks guys, there is some great help coming my (livers) way...

i have the feeling they will all taste like crap after drinking my Bock for the last month or so... but ya gotta do what ya gotta do!

I think i will do a brew and split it to cover a few of the above methods...

cheers!
here's to being sober ..... DOH...DOH


----------



## Weizguy (4/2/05)

G'day Gout,
I just spotted this thread.
One thing you might be interested in, regarding milds.
Apart from mashing high, it has been traditional to sparge high too. This makes some milds a little astringent due to tannins. This may appeal to you. A mild astringency may add to the flavour of a beer that is otherwise "mild" in every other respect.
On the other hand, go mad with hops to increase the mouthfeel, and bugger the style guidelines.
Seth


----------



## Vlad the Pale Aler (4/2/05)

Not exactly true to style but how about using copious quantities of a dextrine such as carapils, you should get plenty of body and a low alcohol content.


----------



## Sean (4/2/05)

A few thoughts from a mild enthusiast:

an og of 1027 is on the low side, even for a mild. Most are 1030 - 1035, although I can think of one or two that are or have been as low as 1029 as the declared o.g. Hook Norton Mild used to be 2.9% in the days before they had to declare it on the pump clip, and extreamly tasty it was too.

Your grain proportions and hopping are pretty much right for the style, but I'd definitely include a small amount of golden syrup or some other sugar.

Consider your yeast carefully. Wyeast Thames Valley worked well for me.



> Being a Munich-head, I'd substitute 1 kg of the pale malt for something like 900g of Light Munich and 200g of roasted oats. But I really like Munich.


Wouldn't really be a mild then, though.



> Looks ok, but definitely go for the Maris Otter and pick up your OG to 1.032-35. Mash at 68-70 to bring up the body.


I'd maybe go to 67/68, but Mild's are not supposed to have a lot of body (and, for the record, most are not very malty). Any roast should be only just detectable.



> With such little malt you need as much character from the yeast as you can get.


Definitely. Mild is a VERY subtle beer style, getting almost all its character from the yeast.



> I wonder how many breweries actually produce their milds by diluting high gravity beer post-ferment (Most I would say)


I doubt it's most because there aren't many produced by the kind of large brewery thats into that kind of brewing, but I know of one good, almost definitive, example produced this way. FWIW, many of the very best dark milds get most of their colour from added caramel, crystal malt being the only coloured grain used.




> On the other hand, go mad with hops to increase the mouthfeel, and bugger the style guidelines.


Not so much bugger the style guidelines as brew a completely different style of beer. Go that way if you want, but Mild can be an extreamly tasty and rewarding style.


----------



## MAH (7/2/05)

Sean said:


> I'd maybe go to 67/68, but Mild's are not supposed to have a lot of body (and, for the record, most are not very malty).


 Well I suppose this is where real life commercial beers differentiate from style guidelines (which most of us rely on because you can't buy Milds in Oz), and home brewing practices that are less constrained by economic concerns.

Using the guidelines (and let us not forget they are just guidelines), a mild is low to medium bodied, which is not hard to do with bugger all malt. However it's also supposed to have a relatively high residual sweetness contribute to a full mouthfeel relative to the gravity. Hence the interpretation to mash high. Also the flavour profile is described as "Malty, though not roasty, with a lightly nutty character".

Current brewing practices in England supposedly don't do a Mild justice, through such practices as using caramel for colouring and adding sugar for cheap fermentables. IMHO such short cuts are not worth considering when making your own beer.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Sean (7/2/05)

MAH said:


> Sean said:
> 
> 
> > I'd maybe go to 67/68, but Mild's are not supposed to have a lot of body (and, for the record, most are not very malty).
> ...


 Although sugar is definitely used by many larger brewers in England (& elsewhere) for cost reasons, many smaller traditional breweries use it in small quantities not for cost but to get the flavour profile they are after (most famously Harveys). A really good mild is not going to include a lot of sugar, but many (possibly most) of the best include a little.

Most Milds are not especially sweet - it's just that the sweetness that is there is more noticably without the hoppiness of a bitter. Similarly, very few of the best milds are particularly malty.

Unfortunately the style guidelines really amount to describing 60/-, not Mild. They really only apply only to a small, almost extreame, subset of milds. Most of the best English milds (Batemans Dark, Fullers Hock, Adnams Mild, Brains RD, St Austell XXXX, Hook Norton Mild, Harveys Mild, Holdens Mild, etc, etc) would not be close fits to the Australian homebrew guidelines. If you chose to brew to the guidelines, that's fine, but the guidelines do not accurately describe the style they purport to.



> Current brewing practices in England supposedly don't do a Mild justice


In which case, what is a Mild? The quality of milds produced by the current family brewers who brew one has never been higher. If you take the view that modern commercial milds are not good representations of the style, you can run with that, but historical milds were not low strength beers - along with throwing out sugar and rest, you ought to up the O.G. into the 1060s. If you are looking for modern (low) strength milds then current commercial examples ARE the style. If they are not, what is?

To finish, I wouldn't suggest for a moment that homebrewers start adding caramel, but it is worth noting that at least one of the very best milds (multiple Champion Beer of Britain Mild Category winner) uses caramel to achieve its very dark colour without extream roastiness. How the best commercial examples are created can inform what we do, without us copying it.


----------



## MAH (8/2/05)

Sean said:


> Although sugar is definitely used by many larger brewers in England (& elsewhere) for cost reasons, many smaller traditional breweries use it in small quantities not for cost but to get the flavour profile they are after (most famously Harveys). A really good mild is not going to include a lot of sugar, but many (possibly most) of the best include a little.


I'm not convinced that sugar is neccessary. Yeah award winning breweries use it, but that doesn't mean you can't do better by not using it. My understanding is that sugar is basically 100% fermentable. Any flavour contribution comes from "impurities" (for want of a better word). For example refined white sugar will have virtually no flavour contribution, besides diluting the maltiness of the beer. On the other hand dark brown sugar will leave some flavour contribution, however it's not the sugar but the byproducts that haven't been removed during refining. Now we're talking very small amounts of byproducts, and this is compounded if you added only a little sugar. Then consider that milds using dark malt/s, will have a significant flavour contributor (but not to the point of roastiness) then it's hard to see how the addition of sugar will add to the flavour complexity, except for diluting the malt character. 

And it's these brewing practices, using sugar, caramel, party-gyling, etc that don't do justice to the modern low gravity mild. Why take short cuts with a major ingredient like malt, when it's already a difficult task brewing a flavoursome low gravity beer? 

Yes award winning beers can inform how we make beer, but we can build on that (such as adding munich malt). This is why although Steinlager has been awarded 'Best Beer in the World' four times at the Les Amis du Vin awards, I'm pretty sure I can make a better lager.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Sean (8/2/05)

> I'm not convinced that sugar is neccessary.


I don't believe I've ever said it was _necessary_. I certainly didn't intend to.



> Yeah award winning breweries use it, but that doesn't mean you can't do better by not using it.


If you can brew better beers than Adnams or Harveys I'll eat my hat. Which would be a damn nuicance living in Mildura.



> My understanding is that sugar is basically 100% fermentable. Any flavour contribution comes from "impurities" (for want of a better word).


Well, that and any influence sucrose (if it's not invert sugar) has on the yeast byproduct flavours. Most of the distinctive flavours in the really good milds are yeast produced, rather than directly ingredient derived.



> For example refined white sugar will have virtually no flavour contribution, besides diluting the maltiness of the beer.


See above. But, in addition, you are presuming that diluting the maltiness is intrinsically a bad thing. If you like malty milds, fine, drink 60/-. Most milds are not especially malty, nor are highly malty beers to everyone's taste.




> On the other hand dark brown sugar will leave some flavour contribution, however it's not the sugar but the byproducts that haven't been removed during refining.


If I meant sucrose, I'd say sucrose. The impurities are very much a part of the ingredient "sugar", and brewers such as the Head Brewer at Harvey's use very carefully selected sugars in very careful ways to "play tunes with my beer" as he puts it. The flavour differences are subtle, but Mild is all about subtlety.



> And it's these brewing practices, using sugar, caramel, party-gyling, etc that don't do justice to the modern low gravity mild.


In what sense? Low gravity mild exists purely as a result of cost cutting. The sugar, caramel and party-gyling came before the reduction in strength, not after. Until the advent of the modern craft brewers I doubt there had been a significant low gravity mild produced without some of the above practices, and I've yet to encounter a craft (or home) brewer who can do a better job than the old traditional brewers like Batemans, Harveys and Adnams. So, a direct question, if the style of (low gravity Mild) is not defined by current and past commercial brewing practice in England, what is it defined by? Why take the name Mild at all if its entirely a style invented to suit the tastes of American and Australian homebrewers more used to extreames of flavour and less accustomed to subtlety?



> Yes award winning beers can inform how we make beer, but we can build on that (such as adding munich malt). This is why although Steinlager has been awarded 'Best Beer in the World' four times at the Les Amis du Vin awards, I'm pretty sure I can make a better lager.


Yes, because Steinlager is crap beer and Les Amis du Vin and similar awards aren't worth the paper they are written on except to the marketing people. Champion Beer of Britain is not that sort of competion and to compare it to Les Amis du Vin is like comparing a fine, craft brewed real ale to VB.

Just to finish, I've never actually asked George, Jackie or Stuart why Batemans use caramel in their mild - there have been better things to talk about on the occasions I've been privilaged enought to talk to them, but I'm damn sure the answer won't be anything to do with cost cutting.


----------



## MAH (9/2/05)

Sean said:


> Just to finish, I've never actually asked George, Jackie or Stuart why Batemans use caramel in their mild - there have been better things to talk about on the occasions I've been privilaged enought to talk to them, but I'm damn sure the answer won't be anything to do with cost cutting.


 Oh sorry Sean I wasn't aware you were on first name basis with the brewers from Batemans <_< . I humblely stand corrected and withdraw all my comments and now agree with you position entirely  .

Cheers
MAH


----------



## neonmeate (9/2/05)

the whole pursuit of authenticity is a dead end.

if only traditional breweries like harvey's and bateman's are allowed to say what is and isn't a mild then obviously they will always keep changing the rules to fit whatever adjuncts, methods etc they use...and obviously us colonial homebrewing hobbyist hacks can't possibly get access to the secrets which will reveal mild nirvana to us...so leave authenticity to the people who equate tradition with authority.

i say, find a mild you like, find out how it is made, think how you would like to make it different, then make something yourself.
if you've never tasted one then don't worry too much, it's a pretty boring style anyway
 !


----------



## Backlane Brewery (9/2/05)

> the whole pursuit of authenticity is a dead end.
> 
> if you've never tasted one then don't worry too much, it's a pretty boring style anyway



Well said, Mr. Octafish.

The milds I tried in the UK were Banks' & Adnam's. Neither was too impressive, and from memory (can't find notes) they were pretty far apart in taste and color. Maybe the UK brewmasters could never agree on a definitive style to begin with?


----------



## neonmeate (9/2/05)

fast and bulbous!


----------



## Sean (9/2/05)

> the whole pursuit of authenticity is a dead end.


Quite possibly.



> if only traditional breweries like harvey's and bateman's are allowed to say what is and isn't a mild then obviously they will always keep changing the rules to fit whatever adjuncts, methods etc they use...


The whole idea of defining a style is an alien concept to UK brewing. But if you are going to define the style, how can you possibly do it without reference to commercial examples past and present? If you don't believe there is such a thing as authenticity of a beer style that's fine, but surely it then follows that you should throw away the style guidelines used for comps, etc, which are surely an attempt to define what makes an authentic beer of a given style.



> i say, find a mild you like, find out how it is made, think how you would like to make it different, then make something yourself.


No problem with that.



> i say, find a mild you like, find out how it is made, think how you would like to make it different, then make something yourself.
> if you've never tasted one then don't worry too much, it's a pretty boring style anyway


You couldn't be more wrong.


----------



## Sean (9/2/05)

> The milds I tried in the UK were Banks' & Adnam's. Neither was too impressive,


Banks's is nothing to write home about. Adnams' is a lovely beer when properly looked after.



> and from memory (can't find notes) they were pretty far apart in taste and color.


Absolutely. Banks's is closeish to what the australian homebrew style guidelines describe. Adnams' is nowhere near.



> Maybe the UK brewmasters could never agree on a definitive style to begin with?


They wouldn't even try. Even CAMRA doesn't bother - we've never found the need.


----------



## Sean (9/2/05)

MAH said:


> Sean said:
> 
> 
> > Just to finish, I've never actually asked George, Jackie or Stuart why Batemans use caramel in their mild - there have been better things to talk about on the occasions I've been privilaged enought to talk to them, but I'm damn sure the answer won't be anything to do with cost cutting.
> ...


 Yeh, I know. But if you knew anything about the Bateman family you'd know that cost cutting through ingredient choice is the antithesis of everything they stand for.


----------



## RobW (10/2/05)

Hi Gout

Have a look at this. It's not a mild but still something to thonk about.

http://www.bodensatz.com/article.php?story=20040802101118682


----------

