Author: Jake Huolihan

Melanoidin malt is used by many brewers as an easy replacement for the time consuming task of decoction mashing, a process believed to increase melanoidin character in beer. Weyermann produces Melanoidin malt by kilning it to about 25° Lovibond, which is said to impart rich malt flavor with notes of honey and biscuit. As a brewer of lager beer, I’ve used Melanoidin malt many times as a decoction cheat, usually making up around 5% of the grist, and it always seemed to work fine.

And then recently, I discovered a fascinating pair of articles on the Brewing Beer The Hard Way blog purporting Melanoidin malt is in the same family as another grain I’ve had quite a bit of experience with– Honey malt. Patterned after German Brumalt and produced using a proprietary process that’s kept under wraps, Gambrinus’ Honey malt is noted for imparting an intense malt sweetness with some brewers reporting toasty, nutty, and even a slight tart character. From what I could gather, the process for making Honey malt is somewhat similar to that used to make Melanoidin malt, but with some proprietary twists that give it its signature unique flavor.

Likely due to being biased by the name, I’ve always perceived beers made with Honey malt as tasting unsurprisingly honey-like and never considered it as being similar to Melanoidin malt. Curious just how similar they were, I decided to pit them against each other for science!

| PURPOSE |

To investigate the differences between Melanoidin malt and Honey malt when used in beers of otherwise similar recipes.

| METHODS |

While some may say Czech Amber doesn’t belong, I consider it to be unique in its own right and a good one for this particular xBmt. In order to showcase any differences caused by the variable, the team decided a grist of 86% Pilsner malt with 14% of either Melanoidin malt or Honey malt would be appropriate.

Czech Amber Lager

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5.5 gal 60 min 35.5 IBUs 13.0 SRM 1.054 1.014 5.2 % Actuals 1.054 1.012 5.5 % Fermentables Name Amount % Pilsner (2 Row) Bel 10 lbs 84.21 Melanoidin (Weyermann) | Honey Malt (Gambrinus) 1.75 lbs 14.74 Black (Patent) Malt 2 oz 1.05 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Nugget 16 g 60 min Boil Pellet 11.5 Saaz 28 g 30 min Boil Pellet 2.7 Saaz 28 g 5 min Boil Pellet 2.7 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature Pilsner Lager (WLP800) White Labs 75% 50°F - 55°F Notes Water Profile: Ca 30 | Mg 0 | Na 8 | SO4 1 | Cl 55



I prepared a large yeast starter with two packs of WLP800 Pilsner Lager yeast a few days ahead of time.

The day before brewing, I collected my water and gathered my grains, noticing only a slight difference in appearance between the Melanoidin and Honey malts.

After rolling out of bed the next morning, I began heating the strike water for the Melanoidin batch then waited 15 minutes before starting the Honey batch.

Both batches mashed in and hit exactly the same temperature.

Following 60 minute rests, I batch sparged to collect equal pre-boil volumes from each mash.

Both batches were boiled for 60 minutes with hops added per the recipe.

At the completion of each boil, I very quickly chilled the wort to 72°F/22°C, which was slightly warmer than my groundwater temperature.

Hydrometer measurements at this point revealed each batch was at the same OG and shared a very similar appearance, flavor, and aroma.

I filled a couple marked fermentors with the same amount of work and placed them in my cool chamber where they were left overnight to finish chilling to my desired fermentation temperature of 50°F/10°C. The following morning, I decanted the large yeast starter, swirled to ensure homogeneity, then evenly split it into two sanitized mason jars from which they were pitched. Both beers were then hit with 60 seconds of pure oxygen.

Both beers were fermenting actively 36 hours later.

The beers were still chugging along after 4 days, which is when I began to gently raise the temperature to speed things up, ultimately reaching 62°F/17°C. With fermentation activity absent 15 days post-pitch, I took a hydrometer measurement showing FG had been reached, and revealing an ever so slight difference between the batches.

I let the beers sit another week before taking a second hydrometer measurement that confirmed the first, after which I proceeded to cold crash, fine with gelatin, and rack to kegs.

Following a brief period of burst carbonation, I reduced the CO2 to serving pressure and let the beers condition in my keezer for about a week before they were ready to serve to unsuspecting tasters. To my eyes, they looked exactly the same.

| RESULTS |

A panel of 19 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt during a montly Aurora City Brew Club meeting. Each taster, blind to the variable being investigated, was served 2 samples of the beer made with Melanoidin malt and 1 sample of the beer made with Honey malt in different colored opaque cups then asked to select the unique sample. With the given sample size, a total of 11 correct selections (p<0.05) would have been required to achieve statistical significance. In the end, exactly 11 people (p=0.024) chose the different beer, suggesting participants in this xBmt were able to reliably distinguish a beer made with Melanoidin malt from the same beer made with Honey malt.

Those who were correct on the initial triangle test were then asked to compare only the two different samples, still blind to the variable in question, and select the one they preferred. Four tasters reported preferring the beer with Melanoidin malt and 3 felt the Honey malt beer was better; however, another 3 tasters said they had no preference despite perceiving a difference while 1 person reported tasting no difference between the beers.

My Impressions: Over multiple attempts, I was consistently able to tell these beers apart in blind triangle tests. To me, the sample made with Melanoidin malt was smoother, crisper, and had what I consider to be more lager-like character; it was also slightly more grainy and toasty compared to the Honey malt beer, which I perceived as being sweeter, fuller bodied, and somewhat fruity. If I had to choose, I’d say I preferred the beer made with Melanoidin malt over the one made with Honey malt, but I wasn’t really a fan of either. For the sake of the xBmt, I used more of each malt than I ever would for a “real life” batch, and while they were drinkable, neither were terribly pleasant.

| DISCUSSION |

Despite being produced using somewhat similar methods, the results of this xBmt suggest Melanoidin malt is different than Honey malt, at least based off the fact a significant portion of participants were able to reliably distinguish them from each other. While they certainly shared some characteristics, these findings counter the proposition that the malts can be used interchangeably to produce the same results, and provide continuing evidence that ingredient selection matters.

It’s possible the quantity of Melanoidin malt and Honey malt included in the recipes for this xBmt is responsible for the significant results, that smaller amounts would have produced a smaller delta, though I’m personally inclined to accept the malts are simply different. This is a good thing, as it affords brewers more options, and it’s good to have options.

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

New Brülosophy Merch Available Now!

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...