This brew is ultra-low-alc, made of the third runnings of Sahti wort. What constitutes "third", is, of course, a matter of semantics. Basically, what I mean is that we lautered the "first" runnings to be fermented to Sahti. It ferments normally to 7.5-9 %. The "second" runnings we poured for the base of some upcoming Stouts. It would amount to something like 3-3.5 % without any further refinement. This beer is then made of the runnings thereafter. It goes without saying that it fails to produce much alcohol due to the high dilution rate and lack of any fermentable sugars. This one has only 1.4 %. The idea behind Nenätippu used to be to produce loads of easy drink that could be served with meals and as thirst quencher in the fields, or even to children. Its ABV is traditionally very low but not zero, and there's supposed to be a faint sour note to it. The strength of the Nenätippu depends naturally on the volume of the runnings; usually the amount poured was quite large, which meant a very low ABV. 'Nenätippu' (~ 'nose drop') is a common name for such a low-alc beer. Or one of the common names. Other names include Taari, Vaassa, Jauhokalja or simply Kalja. The actual name depends on the location, spoken dialect and brewing method. The name 'nenätippu' originates simply from the fact that the wort runs through a narrow protruding tube of the lautering tun, as if its "nose". One method to produce very-low-alc beers is to ferment sweetened mämmi (Finnish Easter delicacy made of rye malt) or bread in oven. Another method is the one applied here. A third way is to brew it specifically out of milled rye malt or extract, like Kotikalja. Kvass/Квас is its Slavic close relative that is made of toasted bread or grains. Table Beer, in turn, refers especially to the British Isles, originates from the taxation system of the 18th century and its ABV is still somewhat higher. Therefore, Nenätippu is not Table Beer, nor Kvass, but "Other Historical Ale". This one is an experimental brew. It was fermented with the common baker's yeast and goes unhopped. The batch is by far the smallest I've ever tried. I have no intention to do these every time we brew Sahti but once in a while I may try a set of microbatches that I could flavor with some traditional herbs or plants. It used to be a method centuries ago anyway. Now the beer itself. The beer pours quite lucid, light brown. Carbonation is suppressed but not negligible. An off-white, minuscule-bubbled head covers the surface up to less than half a finger's yardstick. Soon a hair-thin lace ring circles on the top. The scent is... awkward, like sewer. Umpff... Not particularly welcoming. It fades soon to the background but doesn't really reveal anything else instead either. 🤢 I wonder if there has happened some kind of contamination. I'm very hesitant to raise the glass to my mouth. Who would deliberately taste sewage? No can do. I'll get a pile of antibiotics on the table, just in case. And here we go! Mmm... the taste is not bad. It's not bad at all! This is interesting. Not inviting but interesting. Thin malt water, unidentified citrus and a bready note. Perhaps faint dried baker's yeast, as well. Quite a cocktail out of a terrible fragrance. Or smell actually. Would I gulp liters of this if working in the field? In 2021, nope. In the 1800s, quite likely. I can imagine that people 150-200 years ago had much more exposure to stale smells than I have today. Maybe I would have been used to open sewers and rottening things here and there. Anyway, the drink doesn't taste stale, it doesn't taste good either but manageable if that's what the people used to slurp. And, yes, there's a sourish note in it, just like the description promises. The body is almost nonexistent, very skinny anyway. The finish doesn't much deviate from the actual taste, only the citrusy twist gains a bit more strength there. The aftertaste throws sewage in the backyard and steps on a fat rat when returning to the log house to tell ancient forefathers' stories to the tastebuds. The mouthfeel is, first and foremost, watery. A combined idea of crispness and tartness accompanies the mouthfeel. Otherwise, I should add 'odd' and 'stale' although they characterized the scent and not really the taste, neither mouthfeel. Now it's done. The rest will go straight down the drain. The good thing is that I know what it's gonna be. However, the next time will not come in the same format. If I ever try this again, which I guess I will, I won't let it dilute this much and flavor it with a herb. I might also hop it a bit. It would then count as "historical". I'm also intrigued to ferment it with another yeast but it would not qualify for a real historical version of Nenätippu.