Is the use of smoked malt "authentic" for Celtic Ales?

Most modern sources, particularly from the US, would say "NO!". And, for at least the past 150 years or so, history would seem to agree. The control of and fuels for the malting process had improved greatly in the short time frame before then. Definately, a "smoke" character would not be appropriate for a "golden" or even an "amber" ale.

However, is such true for the old Porters, Stouts, & even gruits? Perhaps the best source for deciding such is CAMRA's (The Campaign for Real Ale) "Homebrew Classics - Stout and Porter" by Clive La Pensee and Roger Protz. They go back to old publications and help us understand what was done, for example, 250-300 years ago (Note: the term "fern" refers to "peat").

From the above named book, starting on page 49:

    "The drying fuel for malt was, by 1736, already culm out of choice. "straw, wood, and fern are apt to give the malt an offensive tang....". If culm wasn't available, pit coal was burned sufficiently to remove all the sulphur and other volatiles and then used to provide the finest pale malts. Culm (coal from Swansea which we would now call anthracite) was preferred and burnt cleanly enough for direct use in malting, but this fuel was in strong demand for converting chalk into lime for agriculture. Thus it was that straw was taken if culm or coke were not to be got and wood and fern were a last resort. In both the 1736 and the 1744 editions of the London & Country Brewers  we find the same quote, and this is a key to early 18th century dark beers.

    "Brown malts are dried with Straw, Wood, and Fern, etc. The Straw-dried is far the best, but the Wood-sort has a most unnatural Taste, that few can bear with it, but the Necessitous, and those that are accustomed to its strong smoaky Tang;  yet it is much used in some of the Western Parts of England, and many thousand Quarters of this Malt have been formerly used in London for brewing the Butt-keeping Beers with, and that because it sold for two Shilling per quarter cheaper than the Straw-dried malt; nor was this Quality of the Wood-dried Malt much regarded by some of its Brewers, for that its ill Taste is lost in nine or twelve months,  by the Age of the Beer, and the Strength of the great Quantity of Hops that were used in its Preservation.

     "The Fern-dried malt is also attended with a rank disagreeable Taste from the Smoak of this Vegetable, with which many Quarters of Malt are dried, as appears by the great quantities annually cut by our Maltsters on our Commons, for the two prevalent Reasons, Cheapness and Plenty".

   "This gives another reason for Porter being stored so long; to relieve the drinker of the over-powering presence of the wood smoke.

    I'm afraid that a genuine 18th century brown malt looks beyond our 21st century means and with it goes hope of a Porter brewed from it! This is no bad thing. Consider the amounts of black or chocolate malt we would nowadays include as colouring and taste in a modern Porter or Stout. Would we consider making a Brown Beer from only such malt, and then hopping it fearfully to give it keeping qualities? I doubt it and doubt we would want to drink it.

   But it was popular stuff. Pope wrote in 1775,

     "Lo, The poor toper whose untutored sense, Sees bliss in ale, and can with wine dispene, Whose head proud fancy never taught to steer, Beyond the muddy ecstasies of beer."    END OF QUOTE FROM THE BOOK.....

     Reading through the above mentioned book, along with other brewing and malting books from the 1700's and early 1800's, suggests that, in the "good old days", the "brown" or "blown" malt had a wide range of color within a lot of malt and also had a notable smoke flavor. With the development of pale malt, both characteristics disappeared.

I have heard many remarks about "smoke" being overpowering and unpleasant. This might be true for low strength pale ales. However, I have noted nothing negative with "smoke" in high gravity porters, brown ales, and stouts.

OAT MALT - I tried some oat malt as it is listed as a primary ingredient in some old ales or gruits, and has also been mentioned for occasional use in stouts.

The "spec sheets" show that it has a markedly lower extract than barley malt. This is because the "husk" is so much more substantial. With my own experience, it was very difficult to crush through my small two roll crusher due to its shape. As such, I got a poor crush and an even poorer extract. In the recipes calling for it, I have decreased the quantities.

However, I expect it to do much better after I have my new Crank N' Stein three roll mill in operation (see below). I'll readjust the quantities of oat malt in my recipes at that time.

If you have a mill which will handle the Oat Malt, there's no reason that you can't use quite a bit of it.

RYE MALT - under construction.

Wheat Malt - under construction

What it the best "format" for obtaining a "dark" beer (Porter, Stout, etc.)?

In reading the recipes for the "clones" of most commercial stouts or porters, the formula seems to be alot of "two row pale ale malt", plus enough "chocolate" malt, "black" malt, or roast barley to get the desired color. This will usually result in a relatively "dry" and light bodied stout or porter, depending on OG and other various factors (mash temperature, etc).

To be more historically correct, and to enjoy a richer flavor and body, include variety in the barley malt "colors". For example, the malts used in most of my ales have the following "ASBC" colors:

TF Golden Promise (2.1 - 3.0); MFB Special Aromatic (3.5 - 5.5); MFB Dark Munich (11 - 16); TF Amber (30 - 42), TF Brown (52 - 65)

Both of the "smoked" malts and the Marris Otter are about the same as the Golden Promise.

The higher colors are the results of higher kilning temperatures used in drying the malts.

The use of the "medium" malts will results in a much richer body and taste. It also more historically accurate, in terms of resemblance to the brown or porter malt, for porters and stouts from over 200 yeats ago.

Enjoy!