CHAPTER 3
Brewing Pale Ales
There are no secrets to brewing quality pale ales. The techniques used in brewing this beer are basic, and they are not dealt with directly in this chapter. Rather, I take the approach that the selection of ingredients—malt, hops, yeast, and water—is the most important decision that the pale ale brewer makes. Therefore, I discuss these ingredients in the light of both traditional and modern practices of pale ale production, as well as offer some ideas for experimentation.
It is not possible here to go into great detail, but where necessary some comments on the chemistry of the brewing process are addressed. Chapter 3 discusses the range of malts and their suitability in pale ale brewing. It also includes a look at available hop varieties, as well as the different forms of hop products available, and indicates how they should be used. Yeast selection, along with fermentation conditions and equipment, is also covered. Finally, I deal with the question of water treatment, discussing its importance to the brewing of quality pale ales and attempting to give a simple approach to the adjustment of mineral content of brewing water.
Brewing Techniques
The traditional basic brewing procedure for pale ales was very simple and was in place before pale ale emerged as a style. It started with two-rowed pale malt, mashed by a single-temperature infusion process. The collected wort was boiled with the bittering hops, perhaps with aroma hops added towards the end of the boil. Top-fermenting yeast was used in open fermenters, at “warm” temperatures. The green beer then was racked into wooden casks, along with an additional few extra hops and perhaps finings. After several months of cool conditioning, the beer was ready to drink.
Two or three hundred years ago, this process could be very much hit or miss. Mash temperatures were very approximate, determined by whether the brewer could see his reflection in the hot liquor before striking the grain. Wort cooling was carried out by holding the hopped wort in long, shallow, wooden vessels, which were often situated in the roof area of the brew house, exposing the beer to bird droppings and insects as well as bacteria. Fermentation temperatures were not controlled and depended on ambient conditions—this is why brewing was normally not carried out in the summer. Other aspects of the process, such as yeast handling, were also very careless by modern standards.
For many modern English brewers, these procedures have hardly changed, although the introduction of instrumentation and a vastly improved understanding of the whole brewing process has led to much better control of each stage. Other brewers have incorporated nontraditional techniques, such as whirlpool separation of the trub, closed fermentation vessels, filtration, cold storage, pasteurization, forced carbonation, and carbon dioxide or even mixed-gas dispense. I am assuming that you already have a knowledge of basic brewing techniques, so I do not go through any of these in detail here (except for dispensing techniques, which are discussed in the next chapter). However, when I discuss ingredients I do make some comments about these processes as they apply to pale ale brewing. As a guide, figure 7 is a schematic flowchart of the various processes.
As complicated as this chart may seem, it does not include several steps that might be taken by modern brewers. For example, not shown is that cask- and bottle-conditioned beers are often primed with sugar at racking. Sugar, an adjunct popular with many English brewers, is added directly to the wort kettle. Also not shown is that cask- and bottle-conditioned beers can be kraeusened (primed with a portion of fermenting wort), although this is not a common practice.
Further, when producing bottle-conditioned beers, many brewers filter the green beer and then redose it with yeast at bottling. This gives them good control over the yeast count in the bottle and permits the use of a different yeast than that used in the fermentation. The brewer might, for example, want a strain with good sedimentation characteristics in the bottle and a powdery, nonflocculent strain in the fermenter in order to achieve good attenuation.
Also not pictured in the chart are techniques of pasteurization. These are beyond the scope of this book and not appropriate to the homebrewer. However, craftbrewers with far-reaching distribution lines might sometimes consider it necessary. Personally, I do not recommend it because it can easily spoil the flavor of the beer, regardless of what it might do for stability. A better technique for the craftbrewer worried about beer degradation in distribution is sterile membrane filtration. Filtration is commonly practiced in commercial bright beer production but is a technique also available to the homebrewer.1 Note that filtration of any kind will likely have a deleterious effect on big, highly hopped beers because it removes both some hop flavor and some bitterness and adversely affects foam formation. Despite the difficulties involved, these beers are undoubtedly at their best when served in the draught, cask-conditioned form.
Malt
Malt is the main source of fermentables in a beer. The bulk of these fermentables, whether you are using extract or grain, comes from pale malt. This base malt also provides other important elements such as foam-forming protein products, dextrins that help give the beer body, and nitrogenous and mineral compounds that yeast needs to give a healthy fermentation. More highly roasted malts, such as crystal and caramel malts, add color, flavor, and body to the finished beer.
In this section, I discuss the various malts and their suitability in pale ale brewing. This includes not only those malts that traditionally have been used to produce pale ale, but also deals with the possibility of using non-traditional malts, such as Munich and brown malt. I also make some comments as to how malts should be used, dealing with malt extract separately and with mashing techniques for pale malts, as well as with when and where to add roasted malts.
Malt Extracts
The dominant flavor aspects of pale ales are hop character and flavor, so pale ales are well suited to brewing with malt extracts. You can obtain a variety of extract-based kits to cover the whole range of these beers—from ordinary bitter to IPA. This is the simplest approach to brewing. Unfortunately, it often leaves a lot to be desired. Some of these kits are not as informative as they might be. For example, one of the more comprehensive kit guides does not mention any requirement for the addition of sugar!2 And then, too, many kits recommend that ridiculously large amounts of sugar be used. They also might offer brewing instructions that if followed will not give a quality beer, to say the least. Further, the literature is not much help because it includes little guidance on kits, although the various brewing magazines do occasionally review individual kits.
What is worse for the pale ale style is that kit beers are almost invariably underhopped, lacking in both bitterness and hop character. Perhaps the biggest disadvantage of kits and hopped extracts, though, is that manufacturers do not offer information on bittering levels. Thus, you have no idea what you are going to get until you have actually brewed the beer.
Not all kits are bad. The better ones offer an excellent introduction to the art and craft of brewing. But such kits do almost everything for you, leaving no room for creativity on your part. I have no doubt that you will find that a much more interesting and enjoyable result can be obtained with plain, unhopped extracts, with you adding your own bittering and aroma hops. The best results, I believe, will be obtained with those kits and recipes that do not require added sugar, but which use only malt. I strongly believe that any kit or recipe that requires the use of sugar will give better results if you use the same weight of dry malt extract in place of the sugar.
Types of malt extracts. All malt extracts are not equal, as some manufacturers include significant amounts of corn or invert sugar syrup along with the malt. Malt extracts often suffer from low levels of free amino nitrogen (FAN) in the wort—this is a common cause of stuck or incomplete fermentation.3 Using sugar in place of malt only exacerbates this problem and can lead to the production of some strange flavors. I deal with this issue later in this chapter in the section under sugars. The point is that you should be careful in your choice of extract and be prepared to experiment until you find which brands suit your taste.
You should go with extracts designed for pale ale, bitter, or amber ale brewing. I think it is best to use plain extracts—this will give you the greatest amount of room to express your own creativity. In any case, the hopped versions are often inadequately hopped for this style, so you will have to add hops anyway. Although there is little public information available on manufacturing methods, most manufacturers seem to use a combination of hop extracts and hop oils rather than pellet or flower hops.4 However, in general, I find that hopping with extracts and oils does not give the clean bitterness and spicy, flowery, aromatic flavors and aromas that can be achieved with pellets and flowers. (See the section on hops later in this chapter.)
I cannot recommend individual extracts, since there are so many of them. Essentially all are produced by a similar process of evaporation. What is being concentrated is a brewing wort. The exact composition of that wort can, like any wort, vary greatly according to the ingredients and formulation used. Thus, the extracts produced come in a wide variety and are usually regarded as proprietary products by the producers. For further useful advice on malt extract selection, refer to the suggested reading list in appendix B.
Using malt extract. Liquid extracts should give a gravity yield of around 1.036 (9.0 °P) for 1 pound made to 1 gallon with water, while dry extracts should yield about 1.045 (11.2 °P) under the same conditions. Nitrogen levels for liquid extracts should be about 0.07% or more, while dry extracts should give at least 0.1% nitrogen. Extracts quoting high-gravity yields coupled with low nitrogen are a sure sign of dilution with sugar of some sort. They should be avoided.
Although hoppiness in all of its aspects is the primary flavor component of such beers, you still want some malt character as well so that the beer’s flavor is not completely one-dimensional. Even with high-quality extracts, you will find it necessary to add extra body and flavor by including crystal and/or roasted malts (see later sections on this in this chapter).
It might also be advantageous to use the partial mash approach. This approach involves adding a pound or two of pale malt, mashing it at ±150 °F (65.6 °C), collecting the wort, adding the extract, and then boiling in the usual way. Partial mashing not only adds a little extra flavor, it also helps to ensure adequate levels of FAN in the wort.
Another point about extract brewing is that it is common practice for the boil volume to be much smaller than the final brew volume. Typically, for 5 gallons of finished beer, only 2–3 gallons are used in the boil. This means that the specific gravity of the wort boiled is much higher than that of the wort at fermentation. There is nothing wrong in doing this. However, extraction of the bittering principles of the hops is less efficient at high gravities than at low gravities. In other words, for the same bittering levels you will need more hops for such a concentrated boil than you would need using all-grain mashing procedures. I deal with that in the hops section later in this chapter.
Over-boiling of malt extract can also be a problem, depending on the method of manufacture. If it has been taken to a full-length boil and the formation of hot break, before being concentrated, further boiling might result in low protein/peptide levels in the wort. The result is a thin beer that lacks both body and head retention. It is best to keep the boil to around 45 minutes, up to 60 minutes at a maximum, to avoid this, rather than boil for the more normal 90 minutes used for a full-mash wort. One manufacturer recommends as little as 20 minutes of boiling for a pale beer.5 These relatively short boil times result in decreased rates of hop usage, so the amount of hops used have to be increased to achieve the desired level of bitterness. Putting the two factors of a short and a concentrated boil together, you might have to use as much as 50 to 100% more bittering hops than would be needed for a similar original gravity beer brewed only from grain malt.
Color is often a problem with liquid malt extracts. When liquid malt extract is stored for a long time, darkening reactions can occur. This can make it very difficult to achieve the right hue for the paler types of pale ales, such as the “golden bitters.” It might also cause the production of unwanted oxidized flavors. So you should try to buy from a supplier that has a good turnover of stock.
Dry extracts are a better bet because they do not undergo such reactions. If you want a darker color, you can best achieve this by adding crystal or roasted malts, which will also enhance the flavor through the introduction of nutty, caramel nuances.
Do not be discouraged from using malt extracts in the brewing of pale ales. A good many extract beers of this style have won prizes in competitions.6 True, you will find it easier to obtain a balanced wort and reproducible fermentations when working with all-grain malt recipes than with extract-based formulations. But the main flavor aspects of pale ales come from the hops and from the fruity flavors delivered by the yeast. With good-quality extract, careful use of hops, and a choice yeast, there is no reason why you cannot brew an excellent pale ale, based on extract alone.
There is a strong argument that you will always get better results from all-grain brewing than you will from extract brewing. But using grain malt does not guarantee success. It is impossible to brew good beer from bad-quality ingredients, no matter how good your techniques are. But using quality ingredients might not be enough, either, if your techniques are poor. Any expert brewer worth his salt should be able to make a good pale ale or bitter from extract.
Pale Malt
Pale malt is the foundation stone for pale ale brewing, whether you are mashing or using an extract. For the paler, golden brews, it might be the only source of color and fermentables. So you should use pale malt of the highest quality, that designed for brewing just this type of beer. In the first edition of Pale Ale, I stated that this highest-quality malt was British malt, which I referred to only in generic terms. Now, all that has changed. Today, a variety of pale malts are available to both the homebrewer and craftbrewer.
Types of pale malt. There are two basic divisions of pale malt, named after the nature of the barley from which they are produced:
• six-rowed pale malt
• two-rowed pale malt
Six-rowed pale malt is the major malt for the brewing of American factory beers. This is primarily because it is high both in nitrogen and in enzymes, thereby making it ideal for brewing beers that have a high level of adjuncts, as is typical of American mainstream pale lagers. It can be used in pale ale brewing and can even give a halfway decent beer (provided hops and yeast are carefully chosen). Six-rowed pale malt also gives slightly lower extract yield than two-rowed malt. Further, it can give chill haze problems unless extra processing steps are taken, such as enzyme addition, silica-gel treatment, or polyvinylpyrrolidone treatment. Most brewers also consider that six-rowed malt gives a beer of inferior flavor compared to one produced from two-rowed malt. Unless you want to make a high-adjunct beer, you should work only with two-rowed pale malt. Since I strongly recommend that you work on a malt-only basis if you wish to brew top-quality pale ales (see the adjuncts section later in this chapter), two-rowed pale malt is the only way to go.
Six-rowed pale malts are designed for high-adjunct lager production. Thus, they are fairly lightly malted and kilned so as to keep a high level of enzymes and a very low color (1–2 °SRM). Such malts are also high in nitrogen (11–12% as total protein). They are sometimes referred to as undermodified, which means that the malting process has not gone as far to completion as is usually the case with ale malts. A consequence of this is that such malts require multistep mashing, with rests at two or more different temperatures. In particular, they need a protein rest in order to reduce in the beer the levels of high molecular weight protein degradation products, which are major causes of chill haze problems. This protein rest is usually at 120–130 °F (49–54 °C). It may be followed by rests at various temperatures before the final saccharification rest at ±150 °F (65.6 °C).
In general, two-rowed pale malts are more completely germinated during malting and are kilned at slightly higher temperatures than six-rowed malts. Two-rowed malts usually are higher in color (2–3 °SRM), lower in nitrogen (9–10% as total protein), and lower in enzymes. They are often called highly modified malts, meaning that a protein degradation step is not necessary in mashing. A one-temperature saccharification rest is all that is required to convert starch to fermentable sugars. Although low in enzyme content, modern two-rowed pale malts are actually high enough in enzyme content to convert up to about 20% starch adjuncts, as well as their own starch content. Properly handled, they will give 1–2% more extract than six-rowed malts, although this small difference will rarely be important to either homebrewers or craftbrewers, either in terms of cost or efficiency.
More important, two-rowed malts give good results with the classic single-temperature infusion mash at ±150 °F (65.6 °C). I say plus or minus (±) because the exact temperature depends very much on what you want to achieve. You might wish to go a degree or two lower to ensure good fermentability and high attenuation, a feature of the early Burton IPAs. Or, you might wish to go as much as five degrees higher in order to give the beer more body. This could be particularly desirable in, say, a golden or American pale ale with no added crystal malt. The variety of pale ales now on the market in Britain and America encompasses a range of fermentabilities and permits you to choose the same.
It can be argued that a single-temperature infusion mash is not optimum for two-rowed pale malts. A 30-minute rest at 104 °F (40 °C) before proceeding to saccharification temperatures has been recommended as improving mash yields by as much as 15%.7 I have used such a rest myself for some years because I found that it did improve my own extract yield. Of course, for the homebrewer this might not be important in the same financial sense that it is to a major factory brewer. However, I have found that this approach not only improves the yield, but also makes it much more reproducible. This makes it possible to hit target gravities just about every time—even with entirely new recipes—which makes the whole job of recipe formulation much simpler.
In An Analysis of Brewing Techniques, George and Laurie Fix recommend running a three-step mash at 104/140/ 158 °F (40/60/70 °C).8 My standard approach is just two steps for beers in the pale ale style: 104/155 °F (40/68 °C). Note that for these highly modified two-rowed malts, a protein rest at 115–130 °F (46–54 °C) should be avoided, as it will adversely affect both foam and malt flavor.
The single-temperature approach has the great benefits of being easy to operate and requiring relatively simple equipment. The homebrewer armed only with a spoon and a pot on a stove will find it a lot easier to run at only one temperature, than to go through several rests, for what might be only a small advantage in yield and flavor. And the craftbrewer might have no choice. Cost considerations often dictate that a mash tun be installed with no heating facility, and of course a lauter tun will not be needed with this technique. Many American craftbrewers as well as English traditional brewers have stayed with single-temperature infusion and still produce some very good bitters and pale ales. A further point is that these highly modified malts are easier to grind and crush. They also are much less likely to cause the dreaded “stuck mash,” where wort cannot filter through the grain bed.
In the first version of Pale Ale, I simply recommended the use of British pale malt, but to do the same here would trivialize the current situation, both for homebrewers and craftbrewers. Now we have a whole variety of pale malts available from both England and America. These include, in addition to the more standard pneumatic malts, blended malts from several barleys and malts from single barleys, such as Maris Otter, Halcyon, and Klages. Also included are American malts specifically designed for pale ale brewing and even traditional English floor-malted products. It is impossible here to consider each in detail, so table 4 features some representational analyses for the various products offered.
Malt Analysis
It would pay the craftbrewer (and probably the homebrewer!) to carefully read the malt analysis of every batch received. This is especially true if you are changing malts or if you want to create special effects. In the recent past, maltsters generally produced their products to the specifications of the bigger brewers, but that is no longer the case. Many of them now make malts targeted to the craftbrewer (and therefore suitable for the homebrewer). You should select your malt on the basis of what you want to do and on the limitations of your equipment. A good look at malt specifications and analyses can save you a lot of effort and time and help you avoid costly errors. Of course, reading these is not always easy because the units of measurement are not completely standardized. For example, English malts might quote analyses according to EBU rather than the American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC) standards. Brewer and author Greg Noonan has written two helpful articles on this (see appendix B).
TABLE 4
Typical Analyses of Pale Malts
|
Specifications |
British 2-rowed |
U.S. 2-rowed |
U.S. 6-rowed |
|
Moisture (%) |
1.5–3.0 |
2.0–4.0 |
3.0–4.0 |
|
Nitrogen, as total protein (%) |
8.5–10.0 |
10.5–12.0 |
12.0–13.0 |
|
Total nitrogen (%) |
1.4–1.7 |
1.7–1.9 |
1.9–2.1 |
|
Total soluble nitrogen (%) |
0.5–0.7 |
0.6–0.9 |
0.9–1.1 |
|
Diastatic Power (°Lintner) |
40–70 |
100–130 |
130–150+ |
|
Color (°SRM) |
2.0–3.5 |
1.5–4.0 |
1.0–2.0 |
|
Extract (%) |
80–82 |
79–81 |
77–80 |
|
Extract (as gravity/lb./U.S. gallon) |
36–38 |
35–37 |
32–35 |
For comparisons among various malts and detailed background on malt analyses, homebrewers should read the articles listed in appendix B, which also includes a source on analytical methods.
The extract figures in table 4 are based on the extract laboratory test ASBC Methods of Analysis Malt-4.9 They represent the maximum possible yields obtained by a much more efficient mash procedure than is possible in a real brewing context. You will therefore get lower yields in your brewery, depending on the efficiency of your grinding, mashing, and wort separation techniques. The craftbrewer might get fairly close to these numbers. However, he will have to determine the actual number by experiment. This should take only a few brews, provided good records are kept.
The homebrewer, too, should determine what sort of yield is obtainable, but much lower values are likely. A yield of 1.030 (7.6 °P)/pound/U.S. gallon is fairly good for any pale malt (and higher than quoted in many published recipes!). Note that the terminology I use here means the specific gravity of 1 U.S. gallon of wort obtained by mashing 1 pound of malt. It is easily obtained by dividing the gravity of a wort by the weight of malt used in pounds and the volume in U.S. gallons. I find it a simple way to measure performance, and one that readily adapts to the formulation of different beers.
Perhaps the most important point is to aim for consistency of yield; otherwise, you will have difficulty in hitting target gravities. If you are constantly striving to improve your techniques, it is possible to do much better than this. I routinely obtain 1.033–1.034 (8.3–8.5 °P)/pound/U.S. gallon in my setup.
One final factor can easily throw off extract determinations: the moisture content of the malt. This should not be a problem for craftbrewers, who use up their shipments fairly quickly, but it might be for homebrewers who buy in bulk. Try to store the malt in a cool, dry place, preferably in a sealed container—this will also reduce the risk of insect contamination. If you use preground malt, buy only as much as you are going to use in a week or so, as this malt very readily picks up moisture from the atmosphere and spoils quickly.
Notice that I make no recommendation as to which is the best pale malt. There are a limited number of maltsters in Britain and America, and they all produce high-quality malt. Regardless of which you choose, you are unlikely to get anything that is poorly modified and difficult to handle. And for American pale ales, IPAs, and amber ales, you are committed to American malts, if you want to stay true to style. The converse that bitters and English pale ales should be made from British malts also holds true but is less definitive.
Malts produced by the older floor-malting process generally give better flavors than those made by modern pneumatic methods in drum maltings. The former is more expensive and now produced only on a limited scale, but many traditional English brewers still will use nothing else for this style of beer. Floor-malted Maris Otter is usually held to be the best and is now available even to the homebrewer. I find that it gives excellent results, especially in those beers with little added crystal malt. For some unknown reason, I get slightly lower yields with this than with more standard English pale malts. It tends to be a plump grain, which probably does not grind quite so well in my own set-up, but it should give the craftbrewer no problems in this respect. I recommend that you try this malt yourself.
Caramel and Crystal Malts
Caramel and crystal malts are widely used in pale ale brewing, especially for American amber ales and English bitters. They are very useful for lower-gravity beers because they add some color, mainly a reddish hue, as well as a nutty, caramel flavor and body, or mouthfeel.
Caramel malt. Caramel malt is produced from fully modified green malt that is taken before kilning so that it still contains a considerable amount of moisture. It is then stewed at temperatures of up to 160 °F (71 °C) in a closed vessel so that virtually no moisture escapes. Under these conditions, which are like those of mashing, the malt starch is broken down into sugars. A certain amount of caramelization and coloring occurs (through Maillard browning reactions) as this mixture is further heated, up to as high as 240 °F (116 °C) for the darker grades.
Many years ago, when I started brewing, it was possible to obtain only one grade of caramel malt, very dark in color. Now it is possible, even for the amateur, to obtain a whole range of such malts, varying in color 10–150 °SRM and with a corresponding increasing intensity of flavor. While many of these do come from Britain, there is also a wide range manufactured in America. The latter include the so-called carastan or dextrin malts, which are very low in color (2–3 °SRM) and designed to give a beer body and mouthfeel, with little effect on color. The latter are really meant for lager brewing and are probably not appropriate for bitters and amber ales, in which the brewer is looking for the extra flavor provided by a crystal malt. However, they might be worth looking at for very pale or golden pale ale types.
Also in this category and available even to homebrewers are the Belgian CaraVienne, CaraMunich, and Special B malts. These range from 15 to 250 °SRM and have a distinctive biscuity flavor. Again, they are not really intended for use in pale ale brewing. In fact, many brewers might regard them as not suitable, certainly not for a pale ale or IPA. I have tried them in small amounts (2–3 % of the grist only) in some of my lower-gravity bitter ales and have found that they did add an extra dimension of complexity to what can otherwise be a rather thin beer.
Crystal malts. Crystal malts are used at rates of up to 10% of the total grist (or about 0.5 pound in 5 U.S. gallons) for a 1.048 (12 °P) pale ale. However, 5% is probably the maximum amount of the darkest grades. Otherwise, the beer’s flavor will be too coarse for this style. Crystal malts are generally added to the mash in all-grain brewing, although they contain no enzymes. All of the sugars and flavors are fully water-soluble and can be extracted by a simple steeping procedure, so these malts are quite suitable for extract brewing. In general, these yield slightly lower amounts of extract than pale malts. They also can be somewhat variable in their yield. However, since only a small amount is used, this variation should have little effect on the final gravity of the beer.
An important contribution of crystal malt to pale ale is color. Crystal malt adds a reddish hue, depending upon the degree of roasting and on the amount added to the mash. However, if you are looking at crystal malt solely for its color effect, and desire reproducible results, choosing the type and amount of crystal malt is not a simple matter. Beer color depends on a number of factors other than that contributed directly by the malt bill. The only real way to determine the color is by measurement, for which there are relatively simple methods available, as described by Ray Daniels in Designing Great Beers.10 However, you can make approximate calculations as to the color to be expected from a given malt bill. Simply multiply the weight of each malt by its color rating, add the products, and divide by the volume in gallons. While only an approximation, this easy calculation does enable you to predict how different recipes with very similar processing steps might compare.
TABLE 5
Typical Analyses for Crystal Malts
|
Specifications |
Pale |
Medium |
Dark |
|
Moisture (%) |
3.0–7.0 |
3.5–6.0 |
3.0–6.0 |
|
Color (°SRM) |
10–40 |
40–80 |
80–150 |
|
Extract (%) |
60–65 |
60–65 |
60–65 |
|
Extrac, as gravity/lb./U.S. gallon |
25–30 |
25–30 |
25–30 |
|
Suitable for* |
Pale, golden ales |
IPA, bitters |
Bitters, amber ales |
*These are just guidelines, not limitations!
Be aware, however, that there are often significant batch-to-batch differences in the color of crystal malts. A variation of 10 °SRM for the lighter-colored grades is common, while the very dark grades might vary by as much as 30 °SRM. Most of these malts are proprietary products and might even give different flavors for the same color rating, depending on the manufacturer. You will have to experiment to find what suits your taste. There is less information about these in the literature than there is on pale ales, although there is still more than there used to be.11 Table 5 summarizes typical crystal malt analyses.
If the range of commercial crystal malts does not suit you, you can make your own. The suggested reading list in appendix B offers several methods for doing this. These start basically with pale malt (usually after it has been soaked in water) that is heated first at 150 °F (66 °C) for one hour or so and then at 350 °F (177 °C) for up to two hours. The exact regime depends on the color desired; however, color determination will probably be difficult because the sample is unlikely to be uniform. I cannot tell you how well this works, as I have not tried it myself. The result likely will differ some from the commercial varieties because the extract starts from pale malt (which has been dried) and not from green malt. One advantage of this, however, is that the “crystal” malt would be fresh. Generally, using fresh malt makes a beer having better flavor with all roasted malts.
Other Malts
There is some, although fairly limited, leeway for using malts other than pale and crystal in this type of beer. Many English brewers do use them, however, although you must remember that they are making relatively low-gravity beers, where some tinkering with the grain bill can add to the beer’s malt character. Other malts available include wheat, Munich, roasted, and brown.
Wheat malt. Foremost among these other available malts is wheat malt. This malt is added primarily for its head retention characteristics. Added at the rate of around 5% of the total grain bill, it helps in head retention for a beer at an original gravity of under 1.040 (10.0 °P). A beer with this original gravity is served at low carbonation levels, especially if other adjuncts are used.
Wheat malt at 1.5–3.0 °SRM has a similar effect on color as pale malt. It gives a slightly higher yield—82–85%, 1.036–1.039 (9.0–9.8 °P)/pound/U.S. gallon. It further has sufficient enzymes for full starch conversion that, when the malt is used in this sort of proportion, will not hinder wort run-off. I formerly used it in all of my pale ales. I have since concluded that it is not really necessary, with all-malt beers brewed at gravities above 1.045 (11.2 °P). The malt extract brewer might well consider it, but only if he uses the partial mash technique. This is because it must be mashed and cannot be added in a steep with crystal malt.
Munich malt. An interesting American variation is the inclusion of Munich malt by some pale ale brewers. This malt is kilned at slightly higher temperatures than pale malt, so it has a higher color (3–20 °SRM). It still gives a good extract yield at 77–81%, 1.032–1.037 (8.0–9.3 °P)/ pound/U.S. gallon and has sufficient enzymes to ensure good starch conversion. So it could be used at 10–20% of the grist if desired.
The higher-colored grades darken the beer just a shade, but its main effect—albeit a somewhat negative one—is in the area of flavor. It should add a little body and mouthfeel to the beer, but little in the way of the caramel flavors associated with crystal malts. The name tells you that it is not really intended for pale ale brewing. But there is no reason why you should not try it if you think it appropriate (although my preference is crystal malt).
Roasted malt. A number of British brewers go to the other extreme and use roasted malts such as chocolate or black malt. These should be used in very small amounts, say 1–2% of the grist, or about 1 ounce in a 5-gallon brew. I recommend doing this only for lower-gravity beers, where just a hint of roast character adds a little extra complexity to the beer.
Brown malt. Another possible variation is brown malt. As far as I know, no commercial brewer has tried it. This is a British product, relatively new to the American market and one really meant for use in porters above all. It is made from pale malt and has a caramel, biscuity flavor somewhere between crystal and Belgian malts. Its color is moderately high at around 50 °SRM, and the extract is fairly low at around 65%, or about 1.030 (7.6 °P)/pound/U.S. gallon. I have used it in a bitter at around 4% of the grist (5 ounces in a 5-gallon brew length) at 1.042 (10.5 °P). The result was a beer quite different from the usual bitter, with a distinctive caramel, nutty flavor. I recommend you try it. But do not overdo it because the flavor is strong enough to mask much of the hop character.
Adjuncts
Adjuncts essentially are sugars and cereals, such as corn or rice, that add fermentables but not flavor. American craftbrewers and many English microbrewers do not use them. However, the major English companies, as well as some of the regionals, persist in incorporating them into their beers. The usual story is that the adjuncts are nitrogen diluents, that is, they reduce the total amount of proteinaceous materials in the beer for a given original gravity. This then reduces the risk of chill haze formation in the finished product.
I do not buy this argument. If the beer is to be served at around 50–55 °F (10–13 °C), which a traditional pale ale should be, then chill haze should not be a problem. If it is to be served colder, then the beer likely will be chilled and filtered anyway, thereby limiting the effects of chill haze. Besides, adjuncts are used only at the rate of 15–20% in normal English practice. I cannot believe that this rate can make or break the formation of haze.
Adjuncts might originally have been used in Britain simply because they were cheaper than malt. Using them for that reason might no longer be the case. It appears that cane sugar is more expensive (in terms of cost for extract obtained) than pale malt and that brewing syrups might be similar in cost per unit extract to pale malt.12 This means that their only real benefits in brewing are in helping to control fermentability and in acting as brew extenders. These assets are of little use to the homebrewer, unless brewing something like a strong barley wine. Nor does this make them of much use to the craftbrewer, who is looking for a beer of character and does not want to risk losing quality for the sake of shaving a few pennies off costs.
Although a variety of cereal grains are used by the “factory” brewers of the world, their use in pale ale brewing is relatively limited. One good reason for this is that two-rowed pale malt cannot handle a lot of added starch because of its relatively low enzyme content. The types of adjunct used also are limited by the fact that most brewers use single-temperature infusion. Adjuncts that need cooking, such as rice, simply complicate temperature control. Further, the extra expense of a cereal cooker means that they offer little savings.
British brewers have used a variety of starch adjuncts from time to time. This happened notably during World War II, when a general shortage of raw materials led some to experiment even with potatoes as a source of starch. However, as noted previously, most brewers generally prefer the use of sugars or syrups.
None of these additives, as I think they are more accurately called, do anything for beer flavor. The high hop rates of pale ales require that malt contribute flavor in order to avoid the beer’s becoming completely one-sided. Thus, I am convinced that using all-malt grists is the only acceptable way to brew quality pale ales. My mind is not completely closed, however. There are some beers that I know were brewed with adjuncts, and I have enjoyed them greatly. But I ask whether they would have been better still if they had been brewed from malt only.
Nevertheless, I briefly discuss the most common adjuncts, should you want to try them: sugar, corn syrup or barley-based syrup, and corn (flaked maize).
Sugar
Sugar comes in various forms, as described by Jeff Frane in his Zymurgy article, “How Sweet It Is: Brewing with Sugar.”13 Traditionally, British brewers used either cane sugar, which is a disaccharide and virtually 100% sucrose, or invert sugar, which is a 1:1 mixture of the monosaccharides fructose and dextrose. Invert generally is produced from various forms of sucrose. In America, the use of sugars of this type has been relatively rare, although corn sugar, which is also virtually 100% dextrose, has been used extensively in homebrewing.
Sucrose is not directly fermentable by yeast. Rather, it is rapidly hydrolyzed to fermentable monosaccharides by yeast enzymes. This happens especially when it is used at the rate of only 10–15% of the grist. At this level, it will not yield a cidery flavor. This happens only when so much sugar is used that there is insufficient FAN to act as a yeast nutrient. Sucrose gives an extract of 1.046 (11.4 °P)/pound/U.S. gallon, while invert and corn sugar will give around 1.036 (9.0 °P)/pound/U.S. gallon, because both contain around 20% moisture. All of this extract is fully fermentable by yeast. This permits you to go to high attenuation of the beer, which is one way to achieve the low finishing gravities obtained in some of the early IPAs.
Note that there is nothing wrong with using sugar for priming, where you are looking for something readily fermentable that will not alter beer flavor.
Corn Syrup and Barley-Based Syrup
There has been a general move by commercial brewers toward the use of corn syrup (maize) or even barley-based syrup. These are produced by chemical or enzymatic hydrolysis of the grain starches. They may even be produced in forms that contain no mineral salts. More important, they can be made to match almost any carbohydrate spectrum, with almost any degree of fermentability. Barley syrups can even be made to be nearly identical to an all-malt wort. For more information on these syrups, see appendix B.
Corn (Flaked Maize)
Probably the only such adjunct worthy of any note is corn. Corn is used most commonly in pale ales in the form of flaked maize. Flaked maize is manufactured by milling the corn, a process that removes the grain hull and germ, leaving only the endosperm in the form of grits. Grits are used a lot in the brewing of American mainstream beers, but they require cooking to gelatinize the starch. Flaked maize is obtained by moistening the grits with live steam and then passing them through heated rollers, which flatten them into flakes and gelatinize the starch. This means that the flakes can be added directly to the mash for starch conversion. In British practice, this is usually done at a rate of around 15% of the total grist.
Flaked maize must be mashed and cannot be used in malt extract brews unless you are using the partial-mash technique; in this case, it should be mashed along with the pale malt. It yields around 1.036 (9.0 °P)/pound/U.S. gallon and adds virtually nothing in the way of flavor or color and only a small amount of soluble nitrogen. I used it in my early brewing days simply because I was trying to emulate the commercial brewers. You will find its use recommended in many of the English homebrewing books of the 1970s and 1980s. For my part, it did not take long to decide that it did nothing for me, and I abandoned its use long before I moved to America.
Hops
The hop flower, whether used as such or in the form of hop pellets, is an essential brewing ingredient. It adds flavor from the bitterness it imparts, as well as aromatic qualities, which are usually characteristic of the particular hop employed. This is especially true of pale ale, which has always been a hop-centered beer. Here I discuss hop varieties and their selection for pale ale brewing, as well as the different hop products available and how they should be used.
Selecting Hops
Hops are the heart and soul of any pale ale. A definite hop bitterness is essential to the pale ale style in all of its forms. Hop flavor and character are by no means present in every example of the style. Further, there seems to be a trend to reduce these in English brewing, especially by the larger brewers. But when dealing with high levels of bitterness, it is easy to make a very one-dimensional beer, especially if it is brewed at a gravity below 1.040 (10.0 °P). Hop aroma and flavor give these beers greater complexity and interest—the better examples of the style usually have these attributes. Indeed, by definition, they should be present in American pale ales and IPAs.
If the hop is so important in pale ale brewing, how do you decide which is best suited for it? First, you select the variety you want for bitterness. That should be easy, shouldn’t it, since you know that alpha acid is the determining factor in bitterness. So all you need is the hop with the highest level of alpha acid, right?
Not quite. The first point is that hops have a quality of bitterness—some hops give a harsher, less clean bitter flavor than others, even when bittering levels are identical. Second, there is some indication that the choice of bittering hops also affects hop flavor and aroma, even though these characteristics come from the hop essential oils.14 In theory, these oils should be lost during the boil, since bittering hops are added as boiling commences. But the chemistry of hop oils is complicated. It is possible that some volatile constituents could be converted into other compounds that might remain in the beer and affect its flavor.
A view of the exterior of the Cheriton brew house in Hampshire. A simple but functional building where they turn out some of the hoppiest bitters you can find.
That there appears to be qualitative differences in bitterness is very important. This is because bitterness levels are high in this style of beer, and any harsh flavors will be exaggerated, compared to many other styles. The drive toward the production of high alpha acid hop varieties has come from the major brewers of America and England. And these are the ones that tend to use quite low bittering levels, where qualitative differences in bitterness are unlikely to be noticeable.
Determining the likely bittering character of a particular hop variety is not easy. Attempts have been made to correlate this character with aspects of hop character and in particular the proportion of co-humulone. Co-humulone is one of the three major alpha acids. It does seem that a high level of it (30% or more of the total alpha acids) gives a harsh bitterness at relatively high bittering levels. Other factors such as wort pH might also play a major role here.15 I am not sure I accept this approach. Some of the newer high alpha acid English hops, such as Phoenix and Progress, have high co-humulone levels (30% or more of total alpha acid), but they give clean bittering.16
There have also been approaches suggested for the selection of aroma hops based on analytical data of hop oil. For example, a humulene/caryophylline ratio of greater than three has been used to define noble hops.17 An aroma unit (AU) has also been proposed that would be based on a profile of certain oil constituents, as determined by gas chromatography.18
This is perhaps academic to the craftbrewer, and certainly so to the homebrewer, as neither are likely to be able to perform the necessary analyses themselves. It might help, however, in selecting a particular variety using published analyses. This analytical approach also helps to point out the pitfalls in selecting a suitable hop variety for both bittering and aroma. In practice, it comes down to following the line on what has been traditionally found suitable for this type of beer. For example, Goldings and Fuggles, the so-called English noble hops, would be a first choice for an English bitter or IPA. First choice for an American pale ale, however, would undoubtedly be Cascades.
I do not want to get too deeply into the chemistry of hops here, as it is very complicated. As I have indicated, definitive conclusions cannot always be drawn from it. There is a good deal of information available in the literature (see appendix B). And once you have read all that you can read, then read the article by Jim Busch, “How to Master Hop Character.” It outlines a good experimental approach to choosing hop varieties. An excellent article on the derivation of hop varieties and their relation to each other is “The Breeding and Parentage of Hop Varieties,” by Gerard W. Ch. Lemmens. Both are cited in appendix B.
Hop Varieties in Pale Ale Brewing
|
Variety |
Source |
Alpha Acid % |
Aroma/Bittering |
Suitable Beer |
|
Fuggles |
England1 |
4–5 |
Both |
Bitter, PA, IPA |
|
Goldings |
England2 |
4–6 |
Both |
PA, IPA |
|
Target |
England |
10–13 |
Bittering |
Bitter |
|
Progress |
England |
5–8 |
Both |
Bitter, IPA |
|
Challenger |
England |
7–10 |
Both |
Bitter, PA |
|
Phoenix |
England |
8–12 |
Both |
Bitter, PA |
|
WGV3 |
England |
5–7 |
Both |
Bitter, IPA |
|
Saaz |
Czech Republic |
4–5 |
Both |
Bitter, PA, IPA |
|
Styrian Goldings |
Slovenia |
4–6 |
Aroma |
Bitter |
|
Cascades |
U.S. |
4–7 |
Both |
U.S. PA, IPA |
|
Columbus |
U.S. |
10–13 |
Bittering |
U.S. IPA |
|
Mt. Hood5 |
U.S. |
4–6 |
Aroma |
Bitter, U.S. IPA |
|
Liberty |
U.S. |
3–5 |
Aroma |
PA, IPA |
|
Willamette4 |
U.S. |
3-6 |
Both |
Bitter, PA, IPA |
|
Crystal5 |
U.S. |
3–5 |
Aroma |
Bitter, U.S. IPA |
|
Ultra5 |
U.S. |
3–5 |
Aroma |
Bitter, U.S. IPA |
|
Centennial |
U.S. |
9–12 |
Both |
U.S. PA, IPA |
|
Chinook |
U.S. |
11–13 |
Bittering |
Bitter |
|
Northern Brewer6 |
U.S. |
7–10 |
Bittering |
Bitter, U.S. PA |
1Also grown in America, but the English version is more aromatic and cleaner bittering.
2Also grown in British Columbia, but those are inferior to those grown in East Kent. For British brewers, this is the pale ale hop.
3Whitbread Goldings Variety; actually closely related to Fuggles.
4Related to Fuggles.
5German Hallertauer derivatives.
6Originally an English hop, now grown in both Germany and America. Popular with American brewers; regarded as somewhat coarse in England.
Here, I simply review some of the more commonly available varieties, with some typical analyses. I also offer recommendations regarding for which beer they are most suited. All of this information is summarized in table 6.
This review is somewhat subjective, representing only my opinion and practice. And it is by no means an exclusive list, for there are other good hops out there. There appears to be a trend in brewing circles to do something different, since “everybody does pale ale.” But even the most dedicated brewer should never finish experimenting with pale ale. Hop flavors form such a large part of these beers, and there are so many different hops with so many different bittering and aroma characteristics.
You can, of course, use several different hop varieties in a single brew, and that is common commercial and amateur practice. It permits the use of high alpha acid hops for bittering and low alpha acid aroma hops for late hopping. Commercially, this makes sense, as it is the most economical use of the more expensive aroma hops. The savings are not significant to the homebrewer, however, and even the craftbrewer must balance such savings against the need to produce a beer of character and complexity.
My own approach for this type of beer is generally to use the low alpha acid aroma types for both bittering and aroma. Even the high alpha acid ones listed in table 6, such as Chinook, Centennial, and Northern Brewer, are considered by some brewers to give a somewhat unpleasant hop flavor. Others, such as Challenger, are high in alpha acid, yet they can also make a good aroma hop. Much of this choice is a matter of taste; for instance, I have one acquaintance who just cannot stand any beer brewed with Cascades.
One other interesting trend has developed in craftbrewing in America: the use of a single hop variety for all aspects of hop flavor. It started in English commercial brewing; even one of the big brewers, Whitbread, has come out with its Fuggles Imperial IPA that has even made its way to America.19 I recommend this approach for all brewers, particularly those that want to learn to distinguish between different varieties. I have done it for many years with my own pale ales and IPAs, initially by way of experimentation, but I have stuck to it because I like the results.
My own choice for English bitters, and especially IPAs, is still the traditional Goldings and Fuggles. Both give a beautiful smooth bitterness and a definite citrus and delicate flowery character to these beers. In recent years, it seems that some of my best beers are those brewed with Fuggles. I have also had delightful results with Whitbread Goldings variety, which is why I included it in table 6, even though it is quite difficult to find in America. And I do like Cascades for my American-style pale ales, even though it can be somewhat overpowering!
Using Hops
But just choosing a hop variety is not enough. You also must decide what form you are going to use.
The main choice of form is between flowers and pellets; however, hop extracts and oils can also be used. For craftbrewers, the choice might be dictated by equipment concerns. If you have a hop back, you will probably want to stick with flowers. (I discuss the hop back further later in this chapter.) If you have a whirlpool for trub separation after the boil, pellets are the way to go.
Hop flowers. Good, fresh hop flowers, properly packed and stored, are hard to beat. They also are hard to handle, especially for the homebrewer. The resin glands are not uniformly distributed throughout the hops, and it is virtually impossible to sample them representatively when taking only an ounce or two at a time. Nor are they always stored properly by suppliers or by homebrewers. They tend to deteriorate more quickly than pellets, so their actual alpha acid content might be quite different from that stated on the label. This means, of course, that it is difficult to reach targeted bittering levels. So you need to be sure that your supplier is knowledgeable. If you have doubts about how he handles flowers, then either change your supplier or go with pellets.
Hop pellets. I think that the aroma from late hopping with pellets is as good as you can get with flowers (provided the latter are at their best). Pellets, in general, are easier to store and to handle. The argument against pellets is that they might have lost some of the hop oil in the compression process, and this argument does have some merit. However, hop pellets are somewhat more stable than flowers because they can be easily packaged securely. Also, they have greater uniformity, thereby allowing them to give more reproducible results in bittering. They further give better utilization of alpha acids, since the resin glands are ruptured during processing.
The most commonly available form is the Type 90 hop pellet. This is essentially whole flowers in pellet form. You can also get Type 45, which has much of the nonessential material removed and is consequently much higher in alpha acid. Also, a pre-isomerized pellet form is on the market, although not for homebrewers, as far as I am aware. I have not experimented with these, so I cannot say much about them.
Hop extracts. Hop extracts are also available. Mark Garetz, in his book Using Hops, considers that carbon dioxide extracts are the best.20 Pre-isomerized extracts can also be found and are useful for adjusting bitterness post-fermentation. The general opinion is that they do not provide bitterness of the same quality as hops added at the start of the boil. Factory brewers like them, but it has been suggested that they are not worthwhile for home- and craftbrewers.21
Hop oils. Finally, you also can obtain hop oil and even late hop essence. Both can be added to the beer at kegging, in place of dry hopping. These are made from only a few varieties. I have done a little experimentation with them but so far have not been impressed with the results.
Determining the Amount of Hops to Use
Determining the amount of hops needed to reach a particular level of bitterness is not always easy. Bitterness is expressed in IBUs (international bittering units), which is measured on the finished beer by a prescribed analytical, spectrophotometric method.22 This method is not very suitable for homebrewers, few of whom own a spectrophotometer. Craftbrewers, however, might find it worthwhile to invest in a suitable instrument; if not, they should at least get a brewing laboratory to perform regular analyses for them.
Strictly speaking, the IBU value of a beer is just a number. However, it in fact closely approximates the level of iso-alpha-acids in mg/l (ppm), provided the hops are reasonably fresh. If this is the case, IBUs can be related to added alpha acids by the following equation:
where G is the weight of hops in grams, U is the percentage utilization of hop alpha acids (as a whole number), a is the percentage alpha acid in the hops (as a whole number), and V is the final beer volume, in liters.
This equation can be transposed into another version using the more common (and more unwieldy!) American units:
where U and a are the same as above, but O is the weight of hops in ounces, and V is the final beer volume in U.S. gallons.
This equation can easily be transposed to solve for the weight of hops of a given alpha acid content in order to achieve a given IBU in the beer. Although some consider this an “inaccurate” equation, it most definitely is not, for it is only the expression of the definition of IBU (yet there is more to bitterness than just IBU and alpha acid). The catch is that the data you put in is often inaccurate. You depend on the supplier’s information for alpha acid values, and the value of the actual sample used differs from this, depending on storage and uniformity of sampling. And you do not know an accurate value for utilization unless you have determined it directly through an analysis of the beer.
Utilization depends on a whole range of factors. These include when the hops are added during the boil, the specific gravity of both the boil and the finished wort, fermentation temperatures, and so on. It is possible to make adjustments for these if you wish (see Mark Garetz’s Using Hops and Michael Hall’s “IBU” in appendix B). The calculations are fairly complicated, particularly if you are using different varieties that are added at different times during the boil.
I consider this equation useful because it serves as an approximation in reaching a desired bittering level. It also is useful for comparing different beers and for converting from one hop variety to another. The added level of calculation referred to previously might simply compound errors, since you still have to guess at alpha acid levels, as well as at losses with the trub and during fermentation. I simply make the assumption that the homebrewer will achieve 25% utilization, while the craftbrewer should expect approximately 30%. I also assume that all of the bittering hops are added at the beginning of the boil. Further, I ignore the contribution of aroma hops to bittering and that the boil is at least the full wort volume. Extract brewers boiling only a partial amount of the finished volume might want to allow for this, as described in the above references. Otherwise, I believe the only real alternative to using this equation is analysis of the finished beer.
There is an even simpler approach: using alpha acid units (AAUs), sometimes called hop bitterness units (HBUs). An AAU or HBU is simply the weight of hops in ounces multiplied by their percentage alpha acid. If you brew to the same finished volume each time, AAU or HBU can be useful for converting from one variety to another and for comparing different bittering rates; however, it has no absolute value. It can be misleading when brew volumes change. It might be better used in the form of volume alpha acid units (VAAUs), the weight of hops multiplied by alpha acid percentage divided by beer volume in U.S. gallons. Like all of these calculations, it can really be meaningful only if the alpha acid value you use is accurate.
Producing Hop Character in Pale Ales
Next, I address aroma and flavor hops. You can add these whenever and wherever you like in all pale ales. As I mentioned previously, at least some of the hop flavor comes from the bittering hops. An old German technique called first wort hopping has re-emerged recently. This technique calls for the aroma hops (usually noble hops) to be added to the wort before boiling. The result is reported as a pleasing, if unobtrusive, aroma to the beer.23 I am not sure that this would be appropriate for a heavily hopped American pale ale, but I would be interested to hear from anyone trying it.
For more hop character, you can use the usual technique of a late addition with good quality aroma hops. This might mean adding hops 15 to 20 minutes before the end of the boil, just at the end of the boil, or into the hop back. The hop back, sometimes also called a “jack,” is a device for straining off spent hops. It is a very old-style piece of equipment but is still used by a number of English traditional brewers and by some American craftbrewers. The homebrewer can construct a similar device by using a fairly coarse mesh strainer, such as a sanitized piece of nylon window screen. Add the aroma hops to the screen, and then run the hot wort through it before cooling. Take care to avoid splashing the wort, or the aeration this causes might result in oxidation problems in the beer. This technique is suitable only if you are using whole hop flowers. It clearly will not work well with pellets and is not for craftbrewers who use a whirlpool in place of a hop back.
Achieving hop aroma in a beer by late hopping is not easy for the homebrewer. This is because the surface area to volume ratio is several orders of magnitude higher for a 5-gallon brew than it is for a 5-barrel volume. As a result, the volatile hop oils are much more readily lost on the smaller scale. You might have to use at least two or three times as much aroma hops as the professional brewer in order to get similar results. Often this might mean that, on the basis of weight, you need to add more aroma hops than bittering hops.
Since you are going to conduct a relatively warm fermentation, the combination of temperature and foaming results in the loss of much of the hop aroma added by late hopping methods. To get more aroma into the beer, you might have to resort to dry hopping. In traditional English practice, this means adding some hops in flower form to the cask right after the beer is racked. As the beer conditions in the cask, it adsorbs the flavor of the hops. The beer is cool compared to hot wort, so the flavoring components of the hops are taken up virtually unchanged. This gives the beer an aromatic character unobtainable by more normal late hopping methods. Dry hopping is still done by English brewers, although usually only with cask-conditioned beers, not with pasteurized, artificially carbonated beers. Dry hopping can also be accomplished during conditioning, prior to filtration.
Dry hopping in the fermenter is sometimes practiced in America. Some brewers use it in the primary, but this can cause problems, particularly if you use a blow-off type of system, where blockage of the blow-off tube can occur. It is probably better to do this in the secondary, which more closely approaches dry hopping of cask-conditioned beer. But simply adding hops to the fermenter, whether flower or pellets, might make racking difficult. The best approach is to use a hop bag that is weighted down to prevent it from floating (the weight, of course, must be carefully sanitized before use).
The form of late or dry hops is a matter of choice, as in bittering hop selection. Flower hops can cause processing difficulties. This is because they are a challenge to separate from the beer. They also will readily block any sort of tube, such as a racking cane, or the outlet of the type of stainless steel soda keg, which is often used for draught beer by the homebrewer. Pellets present less difficulty in this respect but might not give the same aromatic character as flower hops because of how they are processed.
Clearly, you have to use top-quality hops, regardless of how or when you add them. You can use some of the high alpha acid hops, but these often contribute very harsh flavors. In general, it is better to stick to the classic aroma hop types, such as Goldings and Fuggles and their derivatives, the noble hops Saaz, Hallertauer and its relatives, and so on (see table 6 for my recommendations). These might be more expensive, but you really do not want to spoil the beer by worrying about cost at this stage of the proceedings.
The whole business of achieving hop flavor and aroma is very much an art. It is difficult to obtain consistent results with any of the previous approaches, even for the craftbrewer. This is probably why the major factory brewers have tried to eliminate these aspects of beer character from their products. For them, consistency is everything; for us, unpredictability is a delight! Experimentation with the choice and point of addition of aroma hops leads us into an amazing spectrum of beers. A pale ale full of bitterness, hop character, and aroma is a wonderfully complex brew—satisfying, enjoyable, intriguing, and a pleasure in every glass.
Yeast
It is often said that there are two major types of yeasts: top-fermenting and bottom-fermenting. Pale ale must be made with a top-fermenting yeast. But what exactly does this mean?
Types of Yeast
First, let me be clear: fermentation does not take place on the surface of the beer. It is the yeast suspended in the beer that does the work. It is only after the major part of the fermentation is over that the yeast begins to separate from suspension. When it does so, either it rises to the surface or it sediments. This is where the traditional nomenclature of top-fermenting and bottom-fermenting derives.
But modern commercial brewers often use closed, conical fermenters, in which every type of yeast settles at the bottom. And indeed, quite a few strains of “top-fermenting yeasts” do not migrate to the surface, but rather sediment like bottom-fermenting yeasts. Many yeasts available to the homebrewer, especially those supplied with malt extracts or kits, fit this category, since the manufacturer wants to make sure his customer brews clear beer. At one time, a distinction was made between the two types by taxonomists: top-fermenting yeast was termed Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and bottom-fermenting Saccharomyces uvarum. However, both are now classified as belonging to the same subfamily, Saccharomyces cerevisiae.24
The terms top-fermenting and bottom-fermenting have been used for over a century. Top-fermenting yeast was collected by skimming it from the top of the beer in ale brewing, and bottom-fermenting yeast was collected from the bottom of the fermenter in lager brewing. This was a crude form of yeast selection, or culturing, that led to the elimination of strains that did not suit the method of collection. Consequently, yeasts are better distinguished by the type of beer to which they are best suited and by the fermentation temperatures appropriate to each type of beer. Ale yeasts give optimum results at temperatures in the range 60–70 °F (15.6–21.1 °C) and usually stop fermenting as the temperature approaches 50 °F (10 °C). They might separate on the surface at the end of primary fermentation. Lager yeasts, on the other hand, ferment well at temperatures below 50 °F (10 °C) and sediment to the bottom of the fermenter.
The warmer fermentation temperatures of ales result in the formation of a number of chemical compounds that are not generally seen in lagers. Since most of these are of an aromatic nature (in sensory, rather than chemical terms!), lagers are generally held to result in a cleaner, smoother drink. In fact, these fermentation by-products help to give pale ale its complexity and character. Chief among these are the various esters (compounds of acids and alcohols), which are detectable by their fruity aromas and flavors.
There is more to this than temperature, however, for some yeast strains produce more esters than others do under similar conditions. The yeast used by Sierra Nevada for its pale ale, for example, is renowned for its clean fermentation characteristics because it produces few esters. Many of the yeasts used by English brewers give significant amounts of esters and produce fruity beers; the Ringwood strain (used by many microbrewers) is a good example. And, in fact, many English brewing yeasts are a combination of several strains, although this is now perhaps less often the case than previously.
Individual ale yeast strains can have very different fermentation characteristics in terms of attenuation of wort sugars. You need a high-attenuating strain if you want to re-create one of the early IPAs. A low-attenuating one is more suited to a beer such as an ESB, in which a maltier character is desired. Attenuation depends in part on the flocculation characteristics of the strain. Flocculation is the ability of the yeast to aggregate, or clump together, at the end of the first fermentation stage. High-flocculating yeasts settle out very readily and might do so before attenuation is complete. Low-flocculating yeasts separate much less readily and so often give quite complete attenuation. This has led to the design of different types of fermenters, such as Burton Unions, Yorkshire stone squares, and so on, in order to get the desired attenuation from a strain that gives suitable flavors.
Types of Fermenters
The vessels you have in part decide what strains of yeast you can use. Conical fermenters are the most versatile because they permit the use of virtually any strain, whether sedimenting or not. The glass carboys favored by so many homebrewers also permit the use of a wide range of strains, but they work best with sedimenting types. True top-fermenting yeasts do not work well in carboys, unless handled by the blow-off technique. This technique consists of using a stopper drilled to take a wide tube that leads into a collecting vessel. During the early stages of fermentation, when vigorous frothing occurs, a lot of foam is pushed out into the collector and must be discarded. Note, this technique has been called a Burton Union type of system, but it most certainly is not. The Burton Union system calls for the return of the collected beer after the separation of the yeast. In its original concept, it was not used for the early stages of fermentation, which were performed in a standard open vessel. In the blow-off system, the overflow beer is simply lost. Hop bittering resins are surface-active materials and are lost with the foam. This does not help the head formation characteristics of the finished beer. There also is a risk of blockage of the blow-off tube, thereby resulting in a very dangerous situation because of the high pressures that can then develop in the vessel. In my view, the blow-off system has little to recommend it. It is better to use an oversized carboy, with 1 to 2 gallons of headspace above the beer, and to rack into a smaller vessel as soon as the primary fermentation subsides.
Other closed vessels are available to the homebrewer. These include a conical fermenter, constructed of plastic, as well as several kits that permit the inversion of a carboy, with a cap that allows both yeast collection and pressure relief. Conical fermenters can be unwieldy, and the yeast often does not flow well through the collection tubes prior to racking. But I have had satisfactory results with this type of closed vessel. My own approach is to use a 7-gallon polycarbonate vessel, fitted with a lid that can take a fermentation lock, and a bottom take-off tap. This makes for easy racking and copes nicely with true top-fermenting yeasts, which are simply left on the bottom of the vessel at racking.
Traditional English brewers still often use an open fermenter and swear that it is the only way to get the best flavors in a cask-conditioned bitter. In the simplest open fermenter, the beer is held until ready for casking, at which time it is transferred from the fermenter to a racking back. To use an open fermenter properly, you must have a yeast that will form a good thick skin on the surface. This skin acts as a protective layer for the beer once the violent stage of fermentation is over. Open fermentation is practiced by some American craftbrewers, particularly those that have installed British-designed equipment. It is not a technique that homebrewers like much, however, partly because it is difficult to obtain the right type of yeast and partly because the risk of infection is higher than with a closed vessel.
Open fermenters, called “rounds” at one time because of their round shape, used to be wooden and lined with copper for ease of cleaning. Rectangular construction in stainless steel is now more common. Fermenters of this type are usually quite shallow, much more so than conical vessels. I do not discuss the details of fermenter construction here, particularly the more complicated Burton Union and Yorkshire stone square systems, although both are still used in England. For a good, general account of this, see Michael J. Lewis and Tom W. Young’s Brewing cited in appendix B.
Affect of Temperature on Yeast
In the fermentation of pale ales, warm temperatures are used, normally 65–70 °F (18.3–21.1 °C). A good deal of heat is generated during fermentation. Commercial brewers control this temperature by cooling (attemperation) by using either cold water coils in the vessel or a cooling jacket. If the temperature rises much above 70 °F (21.1 °C), the yeast will produce more esters, as well as fusel oils. Although esters might be an important part of the pale ale flavor spectrum, you can have too much of a good thing.
Unfortunately, maintaining the temperature of fermentation in this temperature region is not always easy for the amateur, especially in summer. However, it might not be so difficult as it at first seems. A 5-gallon brew has a significantly higher surface-to-volume ratio than does a vessel taking several barrels or more, so it will dissipate heat much more readily than is the case on a commercial scale. As long as the ambient temperature is about right, you should have no problems with the heat generated in fermentation. However, note that fermenting in glass does not help, since glass is a fairly good insulator. If outside temperatures are much higher than 70 °F (21.1 °C), you either have to abandon brewing or find some way to cool the fermenter. This can be done by either immersing it in cold water, covering it with wet towels, or whatever.
Choosing a Yeast Strain
The choice of yeast is of paramount importance, and the availability of yeast varieties is something that has changed dramatically since my first book on pale ale. There is now a very wide range of yeasts available to both the amateur and the professional. They come in three basic forms—dry, liquid, and slant—and from a number of suppliers. For a complete listing of all yeast strains, consult the “Yeast Directory” in the Brewers Market Guide (published annually by New Wine Press), which quotes over 80 strains for English ale styles alone. Although this guide is very comprehensive, it does not list the strains in the English National Yeast Culture Collection (held at the Food Research Institute, Colony Lane, Norwich, England NR4 7UA).
An extensive article on yeast by Patrick Weix (listed in appendix B) is aimed at the homebrewer. It gives the homebrewer (as well as the craftbrewer) a whole new perspective for a pale ale, a beer style that may have anything from nothing to a great deal of character supplied by the yeast. It also offers you the possibility of matching some of your favorite commercial beers, if that is what you want. However, there is little to define an individual yeast strain, and when they have been obtained from brewers originally, the brewer’s name is never supplied. You have to make do with terms such as Irish ale or with simply a set of numbers. The suppliers will offer you information about ester production, attenuation levels, and degree of flocculation. But this information is simply a guide; you have to experiment to find out what suits you best. There is not a lot of information in the brewing literature on individual strains. However, George and Laurie Fix give some excellent information on a limited number of them in their book An Analysis of Brewing Techniques.25
There is now no need for the kit brewer to accept the pack of dried yeast that comes with his purchase. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with the offerings of individual kits. But you usually have no idea of the source or the viability of these yeasts, although the quality of dried yeast has improved immeasurably in recent years. Today, a relatively small number of brewery strains are available. For example, the Whitbread strain from G. W. Kent’s yeast lab has given me excellent results in the past, with good attenuation and rapid flocculation resulting in a dry, slightly fruity beer. However, I have read that this strain might no longer attenuate as well as it once did.26 Other dried yeasts that I have had good results with include Lallemand’s Nottingham and London strains. My favorite is not available in America—it is the dried brewing yeast sold by Boot’s, an English pharmacist. It is an excellent fast starter, gives high attenuation (78–80%) and moderate esters, but settles out rather slowly, unless fined with isinglass, a substance used to flocculate yeast in cask-conditioned beer. If any retailer is looking to expand his range of dried yeasts, I recommend this one.
Although you can get away with adding modern dried yeasts directly to the wort, I recommend making a starter by adding a couple of 5-gram packets to a pint of previously prepared and cooled wort. Prepare it a couple of days before brewing so that when the high kraeusen in your starter begins to subside, the wort is ready for pitching. This allows you to ensure that you have a viable yeast before you start brewing, as well as sufficient active yeast to get your fermentation quickly under way, with little risk of infection occurring.
The major advance for the homebrewer and craftbrewer is the wide range of strains available as liquids or culture slants. These are a little more difficult to use, as they must be built up as a starter. Begin with, say, one-quarter of a pint of wort, and add this to a pint when it is at full kraeusen. Then increase the wort to 1 quart, and even to a full half-gallon, before pitching to your 5 gallons of wort. The difficulty here is that you must observe maximum cleanliness in doing this step-up so that you do not add an infected starter to your beer. This sounds like quite a bit of effort, and it does require some planning and preparation. But this process makes such a wide range of yeasts and different flavors available to you that it is well worth trying. There are several articles and books, listed in appendix B, that discuss this in more detail.
You can, of course, culture your own yeast, especially if you are able to obtain strains otherwise not available on the market. I do not deal with that here because of space constraints, but most of the references in appendix B contain sufficient information for homebrewers. Craftbrewers should also monitor the quality of their yeast, since it is not only their lifeblood, but also potentially their Achilles heel. Even the major brewers have been known to have yeast infection problems—these can cause both lost batches and lost customers. A relatively small investment in a microscope and a few petri dishes can save significant amounts of money in the long run.27
The simplest approach is the use of the so-called “smack packs.” A smack pack is a small pouch of yeast contained inside a larger one that holds a nutrient solution. You simply smack the pack to break the yeast pouch; you know the yeast is viable and ready when the outer pouch swells. Many homebrewers pitch this directly into the wort, but this is really an insufficient amount of yeast for a rapid take-off of fermentation. For best results, you should still make, say, a 1-quart starter from this pack.
For a rapid, complete fermentation, you need not only a good, active starter and a sufficient yeast count for a successful fermentation, but also a well-oxygenated wort. Craftbrewers and some homebrewers have turned to direct oxygenation of the chilled wort, rather than the more common practice of aeration through agitation and “splashing” from one vessel to another.28 This is a good approach to total control of fermentation and one the craftbrewer in particular should carefully consider. I have found it unnecessary to oxygenate my worts, relying instead on thorough agitation and the use of a good volume of active starter culture.
Yeast Suggestions
|
Strain |
Source |
Esters |
Flocculence1 |
Beer Substyle |
|
1028 London Ale2 |
Wyeast |
Moderate |
High |
Best and ordinary bitter, IPA |
|
1187 Ringwood |
Wyeast |
Moderate to high |
Medium3 |
Bitters, American ambers |
|
CL-120 British Pale Ale #14 |
Brew Tek |
Moderate to high |
Medium |
Pale ale, IPA |
|
CL-240 Irish Dry Stout5 |
Brew Tek |
Moderate6 |
Medium |
Special bitters, American amber |
|
Microbrewery Ale7 |
Brew Tek |
Low |
Medium high |
American pale ales and IPAs |
|
Y29 Triple Pack Ale8 |
Williams |
Moderate |
Medium |
Bitters, pale ales |
|
1968 London ESB9 |
Wyeast |
Moderate to high |
High |
Special bitters |
1This is a relative term and might indicate a fast-settling yeast or one that forms a good skin. The yeasts mentioned here almost all give high attenuation when properly handled.
2While it has been suggested that this is a Burton Ale yeast, my own comparison with a Young’s yeast obtained elsewhere indicates that the London Ale designation is correct. Source: George J. Fix and Laurie A. Fix, An Analysis of Brewing Techniques (Boulder, Colo.: Brewers Publications, 1997), 62.
3This can, and often does, give the beer a very complex estery character, which can be too much for some tastes!
4This does in fact seem to be a Burton Ale. As such, it warrants trying by all pale ale brewers at least once.
5This is probably a Guinness yeast and, though obviously meant for stout, works very well in English pale ales and American ambers. These cultures do not seem to work as well as those I could once get from bottle-conditioned Guinness in England that gave amazing kraeusen and skin formation!
6This yeast often gives moderately high levels of diacetyl. As long as this is not overdone, it can add a nice edge of complexity to a special bitter.
7Basically, the yeast for Sierra Nevada, yielding a clean, relatively neutral flavor.
8This might no longer be available. It is very interesting as one of the few deliberately produced mixed cultures.
9This ostensibly is Fuller’s ESB yeast and therefore mandatory to try if you want to produce something in the full, fruity, strong bitter style.
Can I recommend any good cultures for beers in the pale ale style? I am reluctant to do this because so many of the strains available are proprietary and so many exist that I have been unable to try them all. Table 7 lists some suggestions on strains that have given me good results.
Please, please do not see table 7 as limiting your choice of yeast. First, other suppliers than those mentioned probably offer something similar and so should not be ignored. Second, I have not by any means tried all of the yeasts available on the market. I tend to keep a good one going when I find it, and some of my successes have been with yeasts that I have obtained privately and that are just not available in America. And do remember that the choice of yeast for a particular beer might be a compromise. Something that gives a good flavor profile might not give the attenuation you want or might cause problems with clarification. But yeast is a rich field in which to experiment. The various American suppliers are to be congratulated on their offerings. They have done a good job of supplying a wide range of ale yeasts, much better than their English counterparts, especially as far as the homebrewer is concerned.
Water
It is a truism to say that the quality of brewing water is of paramount importance in brewing good beer. But the one thing you do not want is pure water. Instead, you want water that contains a suitable salt content to give the desired results. This means that the water should have the right kind of salts so that the mash pH (acidity) is in the range 5.2–5.5. In this way, you can obtain optimum performance from the malt enzymes and therefore maximum starch conversion. For pale ales, in which the main grain is pale ale malt, which is low in acidity, this means that you do not want an alkaline water. In particular, you do not want one that is high in bicarbonate, or temporary hardness. If it is, you can compensate by adjusting salt content through adding acidic salts such as calcium sulfate (gypsum).
But do you really need to do this? It is well known that most of the great brewing styles came into being because the places where they were brewed had just the right water for that particular style. Pilsen has soft water suited to pale lagers; London and Dublin have relatively alkaline waters suited to the brewing of dark beers, such as porters and stouts; and Burton has very hard water that is high in calcium and sulfate and is just perfect for pale ales. Yet these reputations for certain beer styles brewed in certain places came about only a hundred or more years ago, when malt quality was not what it is today. Today, it is much easier to be careless about mash pH and still get good conversion than was the case in the early nineteenth century. And if you brew from malt extract, there is no need to add salts to adjust mash pH, since the mashing has already been done for you.
I am not suggesting that you should simply ignore water quality and plough ahead, just that you should not perhaps be overly concerned about it. If the water contains no nasties such as bacteria or organic material and is fit to drink, try a mash and check its pH. If the pH is in the right region, you can proceed with brewing; if not, try adding gypsum in small increments until you bring the acidity into the range cited previously. Note how much gypsum you have added, and add the same amount in future brews—you should be all right (although it would be wise to check the pH at each mash). If the gypsum addition does not correct the pH, then you do have a problem and must do something about it.
However, there is more to water than just mash acidity. Certain salts will have an effect on beer flavor, and their addition might be desirable on those grounds alone. For the purposes of brewing pale ales and bitters, where hop bitterness is such an important flavor component, the sulfate ion is essential because it enhances bitterness. Too much sulfate can lead to a harsh bitterness, however, so the presence of chloride ions can be useful also, as these tend to mellow and soften the beer. Too much bicarbonate can make it difficult to adjust mash pH, as well as possibly cause the beer to have a flat, flabby flavor spectrum.
I do not want to go into great detail here, as the chemistry of water is amazingly complex and has already been well covered in the literature (see appendix B). I do recommend that you obtain a water analysis. This can be performed by either your water company if you are on a mains supply or a local laboratory if you are using a well.
If your water is high in organics and chlorine, then you might have to use an activated carbon filter. If it is high in certain metals, such as over 10 ppm (mg/l) copper and iron or high in nitrites, you might want to consider an ion exchange treatment. This must be of the two-stage cation/anion exchange. The single-stage cation exchange, used for water softening in household set-ups, will not yield good results. It simply replaces calcium with sodium—this is definitely not suitable for brewing purposes. For craftbrewers who want to brew several different styles from a water that is high in mineral content, ion exchange followed by salt adjustment for particular styles is a good, if relatively expensive, way to go.
You should remove chlorine because it can react with all kinds of beer organic components to give all types of beer off-flavors. If you do not use activated carbon for this, then at least boil the water first. Boiling is also a good way to reduce excessive levels of carbonate, which will precipitate as insoluble calcium carbonate. Note, however, that boiling removes only chlorine and not chloramines, which are often used in place of chlorine by water companies.
What does the rest of the water analysis tell you? It will not tell you which salts have been dissolved in the water. Rather, it will list only the ions present, which are positive (cations) and negative (anions). How do you use this information to ensure that your mash will be in the desired acidity range? There are equations you can use that will give a prediction of mash pH, but I have not used them.29 I prefer the simpler approach of adjusting the ion content to what I think is suitable by adding salts. I find it simpler because I can work in direct ion concentrations and can avoid getting lost in the maze of different definitions of “hardness.” I have to admit, however, that this is easy for me because my water is fairly soft, with a relatively low dissolved ion content. It is always easier to increase ion concentrations than it is to decrease them. In fact, the only way to reduce ion content, apart from removing carbonate and some excess iron by boiling, is by dilution with distilled water. That, of course, would reduce the concentrations of all ions present, in proportion to the dilution ratio.
To adjust the concentrations of the various ions, you have to know what your target is. This is not quite so simple. One approach is to look at the composition of a water you know to be suitable for brewing pales, and of course Burton water is an obvious candidate. Table 8 shows an analysis of Burton water, focusing on the typical values for the ions of most concern to brewers.
TABLE 8
Burton Brewing Water Analysis
|
Ion |
Concentration mg/l (ppm)* |
|
Calcium, Ca++ |
270–300 |
|
Magnesium, Mg++ |
20–40 |
|
Sodium, Na+ |
20–30 |
|
Bicarbonate, HCO3- |
200–250 |
|
Sulfate, SO4-- |
450–700 |
|
Chloride, Cl- |
35–40 |
*I have given a range here. There are many published analyses of Burton water, and there is some variation in their results due to variations in samples and analytical techniques.
A simple and effective method to produce a water suitable for brewing pale ales is to concentrate on the calcium and sulfate levels. Adjust these by adding gypsum to bring the concentrations of these ions in line with the data in table 8. I ignore magnesium because I do not consider that it has a significant effect at these calcium levels. (Also, I cannot forget that magnesium sulfate is a laxative!) If desired, you can also add sodium chloride to increase the levels of these two ions, although their concentration is quite low in table 8. In general, you do not want to add carbonate ions, unless your water is very, very soft. In the latter case, you can add calcium carbonate to increase the bicarbonate concentration. Note that calcium carbonate must be added to the mash, not the water, because it is not directly soluble in water. The best approach is to check mash pH and add calcium carbonate only if the pH is below 5.5. Then follow with plenty of agitation to ensure equilibrium is reached.
When adding salts, you might find the following equation helpful. Gypsum is CaSO4 • 2H2O, so that
1 g gypsum/U.S. gallon = 61.5 mg /l calcium, 147.4 mg /l sulfate.
Sodium chloride (NaCl) is added as non-iodized table salt:
1 g NaCl/U.S. gallon = 104 mg /l sodium, 160 mg /l chloride.
Calcium carbonate, used as precipitated chalk CaCO3, will give
1 g CaCO3/U.S. gallon = 106 mg /l calcium, 161 mg /l bicarbonate.
You can see that water treatment is not quite so simple as might be expected. Every salt you add puts two ions into solution, so exact balancing of every ion becomes almost impossible. This is why many brewers making this kind of adjustment add only gypsum in order to give a sufficient level of sulfate and calcium, in a process called burtonization. Sulfate is needed to adjust pH and for flavor reasons. Calcium is important in the brewing process for a variety of reasons—from buffering of the mash pH to helping to ensure good break formation and yeast flocculation. As you can see, it takes very little sodium chloride or calcium carbonate to increase the levels of chloride and bicarbonate to those found in Burton water.
TABLE 9
Targets for Pale Ale Brewing Water
|
Ion |
Concentration mg/l (ppm) |
|
Calcium |
100–200 |
|
Magnesium |
10–20 |
|
Sodium |
10–20 |
|
Bicarbonate |
50 maximum |
|
Sulfate |
200–500 |
|
Chloride |
20–40 |
The problem with all of this is that Burton water is quite unique. It has a very high ion concentration and a very high level of dissolved solids (around 1,200 mg/l). The level of sulfate is extremely high, which is probably why the high level of bicarbonate is not a problem in brewing. It also leads to a so-called “sulfury” flavor to which I have referred earlier in chapter 1. In fact, it is more likely a combining of the mineral flavor of the sulfate with that of the high level of hops.30 All in all, it can be argued that Burton water is so complex and unusual that you are better off not attempting to match it exactly and sticking to adding gypsum in most cases.
In general, I use a much simpler approach and try to hit some simple target ranges like those listed in table 9.
I would look to the lower end of these ranges for sulfate and calcium for a special bitter in which I wanted a more malty character. The same would apply if I were using an aggressively flavored hop like Cascades. If I wanted to soften a very high level of bitterness (say above 40 IBU), I might also go higher on the sodium chloride. However, I would limit it to a maximum of around 30 mg/l sodium and 60 mg/l chloride. As mentioned previously, there is a good argument for not getting too involved in the complexities of water treatment. If your supply gives a satisfactory pH for mashing, if extract efficiency is acceptable, and if the final result is a good beer, that is all you need to worry about.
Note that if you do treat the water, then you must do it to all of your brewing water, including that used for sparging. Otherwise, you might leach tannins from the malt husks during sparging. The result will be a beer with an unpleasant astringent flavor.
If you are brewing from extract, then you might want to make adjustments purely for flavor purposes. This should be done at the boil; all you need to do is to add a little gypsum. Add only 5–10 grams (1–2 teaspoonfuls, if you must be so crude!), and stir it thoroughly into the cooled wort. Do not add it to the hot wort, as gypsum has the unusual characteristic of being less soluble in a hot aqueous medium than in a cold one.
One last point in this age of “designer” water. If your supply does not appear to be suitable for brewing pale ales, be careful about using bottled spring water. Do get a full analysis of the water and check it carefully because if it is genuine spring water, it might well be unusually high in bicarbonate and not at all appropriate for pale ale. You might be better off looking into techniques such as ion exchange on your original supply or obtaining brewing water from an entirely different source.