BeerBorg

Has anyone noticed how the books and articles that are coming out are much more forward in suggesting a reduction in the use of specialty malts?
Looking back at recipes a few years back, the percentage of non base malts were much higher.
And it's not just suggested for IPAs either. FWIW many of my recipes have been made with smaller amounts and it really does help the hops to shine. KISS is what it's about now it seems and let the hops and yeast do their things for flavor and aroma.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree with those articles. I have made good beers with higher percentages or more malts. But I have made good beers with very little crystal or Munich and 90%+ of two row. I really think that the yeast and hops are the main drivers of beer flavor.

I'm on board for that thought, especially in terms of pales and IPAs. It seems like there has been a big move commercially from the almost amber colored IPA to one that is much less malt forward. I know Yazoo switched their IPA this year to be primarily a 2 row and wheat base with just a bit of specialty malt. Their reasoning was that it let the hops shine more. Their 10 year IPA was their first cut at that malt base. I've seen similar from a lot of breweries. I had an Alpha King last night, with is very much the old school amber, and it's great, but I'll likely be going much more pale on my next iPA.

I can get on board with this, too - depending on the beer style of course.
I think it also comes down to "just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD". Of course, the same goes for most anything like too much hops <ducks brick thrown at him from Beer-lord>, too much specialty malt, too much alcohol, etc.

But as I look back, the pales and IPAs I tend to like best are also lighter in color.

As a newbie, AG brewer, it was cool to add more grains. Sorta like, the more the better but as time and experience grew, it was 'no way'! My best beers have been somewhat simple but experience has helped me make better beers.

The KISS mentality works for non hoppy beers too. The best octoberfests are nothing but Pils/Vienna or Pils/Munich and some hops. The best Belgians are nothing but pale malt, sugar adjunct of various shades, and some hops. It's not only about letting the hops shine, it's about letting whatever ingredient you want focused be there in the front for you be that malt, yeast phenolic/esters, or hops. You throw too much stuff in there and it gets all muddied together.

I like to throw Munich (or Vienna) into my IPAs so I can add more hops with a lower OG. But when I do this, those beers tend to be nothing but pale malt or pilsner and munich. I don't put any crystal into them. The munich gives it maltyness, but not sweetness (they are different) - it still comes across as a simple grain bill, but it seems like a bigger beer then it is for it's OG, so I can add more hops and keep it to an OG where I can still drink more then one beer and not be sad.

I do like simpler grain bills in most cases, and especially with lighter-colored beers. But some of my recipes, which I find quite tasty, have fairly complicated grain bills, consisting of four or more types of grain. Having said that, these are American Dark Lagers, Irish Reds, and such, and some of the grains are in very small amounts in terms of percentage of malts.

I think a lot depends on the style being pursued. Pale Ales and IPAs can benefit from being nearly SMaSH brews. Not so ambers, browns, and the darker styles.

FedoraDave wrote:Not so ambers, browns, and the darker styles.

I agree in many cases, but it depends on the darker style.

IE you can make a really good (if not the best) Irish Dry Stouts with nothing but pale malt and roasted barley.

The best dark Belgians (dubbel/quad/strong dark) are often made with nothing but pale malt, a decoction mash, and some dark candi sugar/syrup.

Now the Bier de Mars I'm going to make will be more complicated, because it's about creating a blend of grains as if they were malted by hand in a somewhat uncontrolled manner by a French farmer back in the day, IE a mix of light, amber, crystal, dark/roasted malts depending on how well it was stirred and how wet it was. As in some of it was dried properly, some was still wet, some burnt, some didn't, but it all got tossed into the mash because it would be a waste otherwise.

I rarely make stouts, and I've never made a Belgian, so I can't comment, but what you say makes sense.

I was thinking about my three favorite darker beers that I've got in my stable; Amber's Amber Lager, which uses six different grains, 2Daves Irish Red, which uses six grain, and Copperbottom Lager, which use 5. Not all of those are specialty grains; I sometimes mix base malts to give more depth.

A family favorite Oktoberfest is a SMASH Munich 20L and Northern Brewer. To spec not but we like it.

I have to agree too. The last IPA I brewed had two pounds of flaked wheat in it and little or no head retention or lacing. I'm thinking if I had used wheat malt instead it wouldn't have been a problem, lesson learned.

braukasper wrote:A family favorite Oktoberfest is a SMASH Munich 20L and Northern Brewer. To spec not but we like it.

I have loved every Munich SMaSH beer I've made. I don't think you can go wrong there.

Interesting. I just finished a keg of red with 2# of Munich in it. I liked the malty, bready flavor. But I'm scaling it back next time.

I brew a lot of English Styles and session beers. With those styles especially low gravity ales, getting some specialty malts in there is a must for flavor, body and character. So I guess it all depends, (I don't brew many of them) but for seriously hoppy beers simple seems to be best. I'm brewing a IIPA today that is very simple. 2 Row, Cane Sugar, C-40 and some Carapils. I'm guilty of designing most of my recipes with more than they probably need. Something I'm slowly working on even after 6 years of brewing.