Briess has done a few things differently in the last few years. First they stopped malting 6-row. Then they sourced malt from the Bighorn Basin. I was surprised to see malt in poly bags, not paper, which I think is better for storage. At NHC they had a new product that you coul get a pound of, 30L Munich. I might have to try some of their base malt again if I can find it at the right price.
I’m brewing tomorrow…thought I had 10# Pilsner…to go in my 40/60 Halcyon/Pilsner Pale Ale…Well I’m doing 40/60 Halcyon/Briess 2-row. It won’t be the same but it will be fine…
I really like Thomas Fawcett Pearl and Halcyon…Any comments on these two?
I can’t remember who did it, but I read an experiment where they taste tested a beer brewed with 2 row vs one brewed with Pilsner. With all else the same, very few folks could tell the difference.
You will definitely notice. As others have mentioned Marris Otter (MO) lends a more english’y flavor. Early in my all-grain adventure the LBHS gave me a recipe using 1/2 Marris Otter and 1/2 two row. I wondered about it, so I made the same recipe using all two row and all MO. The all MO brew was a bit much flavor wise, and the all two row was plain vanilla, but the 50:50 mix popped!
“2 row” is a poor descriptor for precisely which malt to use. Maris Otter is a variety of 2 row. We all misuse these terms. I tell people I use Golden Promise… but more specifically its Simpsons Golden Promise Finest Pale Ale. Even though you could certainly use a larger yeast with it, even a larger yeast that is actually an ale yeast.
It’s just one of those things. In fishing they refer to monofilament vs florocarbon. Um, both are actually monofilament, unless they are braided… but I guess monofilament sounds better than nylon.
I suspect one of the key aspects that effects final beer flavor is diastatic power. Generally American paler kilned malts, about 80% of which are 2 row, are far higher DP than their European counterparts. Yes, different varieties. Yes, kilned differently. But treat an American variety they way the European maltsters do and I bet my suspicion is accurate ish.
Jim, nice to see you got a break from fishing to join us again! ;) If you (and anybody else) get a chance, listen to the recent MBAA podcasts on “6-rowification” of American 2-row. Actually it seems 90% of US malt is now 2-row, but it has properties so close to 6-row, you really can’t treat these varieties like European barley. But it may not matter. You can still make very tasty malt and beer with them (Americans have been making all malt beer with 6-row for centuries.) In fact, anybody who has a day too rainy for fishing, riding or whatever keeps you busy in the summer, and wants to really learn about barley and malt differences, listen to any and all of the MBAA podcasts featuring Joe Hertrich. Malt and flavor (ep. 24-26) and 6-rowification (ep. 88-89.) Great stuff.
Indeed! The ‘2-Row’ descriptor is almost worthless. The more important descriptor is the malt’s color rating since that directly relates to the malt’s SMM content and potential DMS difficulties. To add to the confusion, maltsters apply confusing and deceptive names to their malts and that introduces more problems. One maltster’s Pils malt could be another’s Extra Pale malt.
While I said ‘2-Row’ is almost worthless above, it still indicates the broad barley variety. This is important since malts that don’t state that they are ‘2-Row’, could very well be made with ‘6-Row’ barley. In reading a number of books on malt, I noted that there are malts that are actually made with 6-Row barley and the maltsters provide no indication of the variety in their naming. You might say that’s OK with you, but an important fact is that 6-Row barley contains about 50 to 100 percent more SMM potential than 2-Row. Fortunately, the darker a malt is kilned, the lower the SMM content.
This all still points to the fact that brewers need to pay more attention to the color rating of their base malts than they have before. Names are just names. Color rating is factual and it provides more indication of wort flavor and DMS potential.
One thing people should try to do is get into the habit of obtaining Malt Analysis sheets if they can. I understand that not everyone buys in bulk and is able to get a specific lot analysis with their malt, but maltsters often give typical analysis, which at the very least gives you a better idea than nothing about how the malt will perform.
The major players regardless of type or brand are:
1.) Color
2.) Moisture
3.) Fine Grind/Dry Basis Extract
4.) Fine Grind/As Is Extract (accounts for Moisture)
5.) DI pH
6.) Hartong Index (VZ 45C) - Helps to determine the gelatinization temperature
7.) Total Protien
8.) Kolbach Index (Indicates the degree of modification)
You can become a better, more consistent brewer by knowing how your malt will perform regardless of it’s type of manufacturer.
^^^^
Weyermann and Rahr, at least, have a QR code on the bag that will link you to a lot analysis. If you don’t buy by the bag yourself , you could at least see if your LHBS will let you scan a bag from their shipment.
One thing I’ve learned from the podcasts is that American varieties, and even American-grown European varieties, really have to be handled differently. The S/T has to be pushed higher, not for its own sake, but because it goes hand in hand with beta glucan reduction, breakdown of cell walls to make starch available, and many other things. Yes, it gives American malts higher DP, as well as FAN. But you can deal with that in process. Otherwise the malt will lack good capacity for flavor and color development, will perform poorly in the brewhouse, and the beer will not clarify well (or taste very exciting.) I just finished a keg I brewed with locally grown KWS Scala, locally floor malted to European specs. I think I saw all of those problems. I’d have to try the same barley malted in the conventional US way to be sure. But this malt wasn’t European-like, it was just disappointing.
I meant we, as in the Royal we, as in homebrewers and hobbyists.
I’ve thought about this over the last month or so when I was revising my personal sheet. I think using the coarse grind as is numbers would make many people undershoot gravity. Think about it: the fine grind as is values are determine by pulverizing the malt and draining every single drop of wort possible out of it. They likely get almost 100% Lauter η in addition to 100% Conversion η. In that sense, we wouldn’t want to use that number because we can’t achieve those same results.
However, we don’t crush that fine so we don’t get full lauter efficiency. This makes using the DBAI okay because we are going to apply a mash efficiency term less than 100% to the calculation.