I’m curous because I see them being used as substitutes in some recipes.
I think Weyermann calls (their version of) aromatic malt Melanoidin malt, so it shouldn’t be any big difference between them.
that is what I have heard.
to confuse matters though, MFB makes a Special Aromatic malt which is altogether different and can be used up to 100% of the grist.
Maybe a little difference but not much… I like to use this chart as a reference. I’m sure there are better ones but this one seems to work for me…
Just glanced at that chart and noticed that acid malt has an X in the ‘head’ column. Is that a property of lthe malt itself (even though it must be mashed) or a result of the lower pH?
Jamil uses both in some of his recipes.
Confusing ain’t it? Took me a long time but I feel like I am getting a grasp on all the malts out there.
Here is my take. Every maltster likes to give their own malt its own name to differentiate from all the others out there of a similar type. Weyerman is particularly fond of this, even trademarking their malt names! The malts all are different to some degree in that each maltster kilns them in their own way, uses different source barley, etc.
That said they are of a similar type and can be substituted but will have their own individual character. Whether it is a strong or subtle difference depends on the overall useage and recipe.
Melanoidin is supposed to mimic the effect of decoction mashing as I understand it. Adding melanoidins you would get in that process. Aromatic is supposed to add malty aroma and to some extent flavor/mouthfeel. Which arguably is the character melanoidins, products of maillaird reactions.
So, anyway my rule of thumb is look at what the maltster is claiming their malt offers and then at the root of it you can tell what type of malt it actually is. A crystal, roasted, base, toasted, etc…
Oh, and by the way. Sorry to be nit picky but shouldn’t this be in the ingredients section?
I think this is in Ingredient section.
I see it had been moved here.
Rock on…