Author: Matt Del Fiacco

Homebrewers have had a pendulum-like relationship with Crystal/Caramel malts in recent history, swinging from usage that would now be considered “excessive” to the exclusion of crystal malts of any kind. Like all things, the context of usage is important, though it seems that a more restrained use of Crystal malt is still prevalent in modern homebrew recipes.

Carahell is 10 °L caramel malt produced by Weyermann that is lauded for its ability to contribute a sweet malt character as well as a fuller body to beer. While seemingly similar to Crystal 10, Weyermann’s process for Carahell is said to produce a malt that, when used as 10-15% of the grist, has a noticeable impact on foam stability and retention, similar to products like Carapils and CaraFoam.

Recently, I haven’t been using Crystal malts much in the beers I brew, save for the occasional Imperial Stout in which I include a fairly hefty dose. With so many anecdotal reports of Carahell’s positive influence on body and foam, I was curious of the impact it would have on a crisp pale lager and put it to the test!

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between a beer made with Carahell malt and an otherwise similar beer made without Carahell malt.

| METHODS |

For this xBmt, I decided on a crisp Kellerbier, as I thought it would fit well with and without the Carahell while also letting any differences shine.

CaraHellerBier

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5 gal 90 min 17.6 IBUs 4.0 SRM 1.043 1.007 4.8 % Actuals 1.043 1.006 4.9 % Fermentables Name Amount % Barke Pilsner (Weyermann) 6.687 lbs 89.92 Carahell (Weyermann) 12 oz 10.08 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Tettnang 22 g 90 min First Wort Pellet 4.5 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature Global (L13) Imperial Yeast 75% 46°F - 56°F Notes Water Profile: Ca 68 | Mg 0 | Na 10 | SO4 70 | Cl 65 Download Download this recipe's BeerXML file

A few days before brewing, I spun up a couple starters of Imperial Yeast L13 Global.

My brew day began with collecting the water then turning on my elements to heat it up.

I measured out and milled two sets of grain, one of which was all Pilsner malt while the other had Carahell malt as 10% of the grist.

Both batches were step mashed and hit the same temperatures, each step lasting 30 minutes.

I took pH measurements 15 minutes into each mash that showed the all Pilsner malt batch had a slightly higher pH than the Carahell wort.

During the second mash step, I weighed out the hops for each batch.

When the mashes were complete, I removed the grain baskets and let them drip into the kettle to reach the same pre-boil volume. Both worts were boiled for 90 minutes with hops added at the times listed in the recipe.

Following the uneventful boils, I quickly chilled the worts with my CFC.

Hydrometer measurements showed both batches hit the same OG.

I placed both filled fermentation kegs in my chamber and let them finish chilling to my desired fermentation temperature of 49°F/9°C before pitching the yeast.

Both beers were active by the following morning. With signs of fermentation slowing down 8 days later, I transferred the beers to sanitized serving kegs and raised the temperature to 64°F/18°C for a diacetyl rest with spunding valves attached.

Hydrometer measurements a few days later showed both beers had reached the same FG.

I lowered the temperature of the beers to 38°F/3°C and let them lager for another week before they were ready to serve to participants.

| RESULTS |

A total of 20 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 2 samples of the beer that did not include Carahell and 1 sample of the beer made with Carahell in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the sample that was unique. While 11 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to accurately identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, 12 (p=0.013) were capable of doing so, indicating participants in this xBmt were able to reliably distinguish a beer made without the use of Carahell malt from one where it was included.

The 12 participants who made the accurate selection on the triangle test were instructed to complete a brief preference survey comparing only the 2 beers that were different. A total of 5 reported preferring the all Pilsner malt beer, 5 liked the Carahell malt beer more, and 2 reported having no preference despite noticing a difference.

My Impressions: Out of the 6 semi-blind triangle tests I attempted, I accurately identified the odd-beer-out 5 times, which is pretty consistent. While sampling the beers next to each other prior to attempting the triangles, I was pretty confident the beers were perceptibly different, the Carahell batch was noticeably more sweet, though not at all in a bad way. I enjoyed both of these beers quite a bit!

| DISCUSSION |

I tend to err on the side of caution when I approach recipe construction and use a deft touch when it comes using any type of Crystal malt. As such, I had no doubt the Kellerbier with the Carahell in the grist would be an unbalanced, overly sweet mess that made it easily distinguishable from the all Pilsner malt version. Indeed, tasters were capable of reliably telling the beers apart in this xBmt, suggesting Carahell used at 10% of the grist does have a noticeable impact, at least in a pale lager. However, said impact wasn’t exactly what I thought it would be.

In conversations with tasters who had finished the evaluation, many mentioned a stronger sweet character in the Carahell beer as being the defining factor, though none described it as being unpleasant in any way. Many tasters preferred the batch made with Carahell, and while I didn’t really have a strong preference, I rather enjoyed it myself. Curiously, nobody mentioned differences in body as playing a role in their decision, and I didn’t really notice anything on that front either.

As for claims that the use of Carahell can improve foam, I did a simple test to see for myself. I started by pouring a similar sized sample of each beer in identical glasses to observe any immediate differences.

Then, I let the beers sit for 5 minutes to see if the Carahell had any impact on head retention.

Unlike past experiments on malts purported to help with foam, it would seem Carahell actually does. This is something I observed multiple times over various days with beers served in various glasses.

Based on my experience with these xBmt beers, I look forward to using Carahell to add touches of malty sweetness to certain styles I brew. And while I’ll likely continue to refrain from using too much Crystal malt in general, I certainly plan to continue exploring the impact various versions have on beer.

If you have any thoughts about this xBmt, please do not hesitate to share in the comments section below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email



Like this: Like Loading...