Author: Marshall Schott

Base malts generally make up the largest proportion of the grist in beer recipes, supplying the diastatic power necessary to enzymatically convert starch to fermentable sugar. The most recognizable base malts are standard Pale and Pilsner malts, both produced from 2-row barley that’s kilned to a relatively low degree. However, despite their heavy presence in the majority of today’s beers, they aren’t the only options.

Often misconstrued as specialty malts, both Vienna and Munich malts are also classified as base malts that can be used in the same manner as any other base malt, even as 100% of the grain bill. While occasionally compared to each other and even viewed as viable substitutes, Vienna and Munich malts are different in that they are kilned to different degrees, the former typically falling within a range of 3-5 °L while the latter is slightly darker at 5-10 °L. Used in paler styles such as Vienna Lager, Festbier, and Maibock, Vienna malt is generally described as adding a subtle malt sweetness and toasty character to beer. In comparison, Munich malt is known for imparting rich malty and bread crust flavors expected in styles like Märzen.

I’ve used both Vienna and Munich malts in hundreds of batches over the years, often featuring it in small amount as an accent, though occasionally using it in higher doses to add more character than I expect from other base malts. Having never evaluated beers made with either side-by-side and curious to try Weyermann’s Barke line, I snagged a sack of each on a recent grain order and designed an xBmt to see how they compare!

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between beers made with a grist consisting entirely of either Vienna malt of Munich I malt.

| METHODS |

Single malt recipes are surprisingly easy to design. Since I wanted to make sure any differences caused by either malt came through, I went with a simple hop schedule and clean lager yeast.

WienerMünchen

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5.5 gal 30 min 26.1 IBUs 8.4 SRM 1.050 1.012 4.9 % Actuals 1.05 1.017 4.3 % Fermentables Name Amount % Vienna OR Munich I (Weyermann) 10.5 lbs 100 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Magnum 18 g 30 min First Wort Pellet 12.2 Hallertauer Mittelfrueh 30 g 15 min Boil Pellet 2.4 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature Global (L13) Imperial Yeast 75% 46°F - 56°F Notes Water Profile: Ca 75 | Mg 1 | Na 10 | SO4 86 | Cl 75 Download Download this recipe's BeerXML file

I started off by throwing together a single starter of Imperial Yeast L13 Global a couple days ahead of time.

The afternoon before my brew day, I weighed out and milled the grain while filling a single mash tun with the entire volume of brewing liquor required for both batches.

I placed my heat stick in the water and set a timer to turn on about 2 hours before I planned to start brewing the next day.

I woke up to water that was quite a bit warmer than my target strike temperature, which I planned since it was expected to lose some heat racking half to a second cool mash tun. Once the transfer was complete, I placed a lid on the first mash tun then stirred the second until the water dropped to strike temperature before adding the Vienna malt grist. Twenty minutes later, after ensuring the brewing liquor was at strike temperature, I mashed in the Munich malt batch.

Judging by the similar mash temperatures, both of which were right on target, I’d say my calculator worked.

I stole a small sample of wort from each batch 15 minutes after mashing in to measure the mash pH and found a predictable difference.

Following each 60 minute mash rest, I collected the full volume of sweet wort.

The worts were boiled for 30 minutes with the same amounts of the same variety of hops added at the same times.

At the end of each boil, I quickly chilled the wort to slightly warmer than my groundwater temperature.

Refractometer readings of the chilled worts showed a small difference of 0.5 °P, or about 0.002 SG points, with the Munich malt wort clocking in a little higher than its Vienna malt counterpart.

I proceeded to rack equal amounts of wort from either batch to sanitized fermentation vessels.

The fermentors were placed in a chamber where they were allowed to finish chilling to my desired fermentation temperature of 60°F/16°C. I returned 4 hours later to perfectly chilled worts and pitched equal amounts of the yeast starter into each. Fermentation activity was present in both batches a few hours later and I let them rip along for 6 days before increasing the temperature to 70°F/21°C. After a 4 day diacetyl rest with all airlock activity absent, I took hydrometer measurements and discovered the Vienna malt beer attenuated a bit more than the Munich malt batch.

The beers were cold crashed overnight and fined with gelatin before being kegged.

I placed the filled kegs in my keezer where they were burst carbonated at 50 psi for 14 hours, after which I reduced the gas to serving pressure and let them condition another week before collecting data. While the difference in color was stark, both beers were equally clear and carbonated.

| RESULTS |

A total of 21 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 2 samples of the Vienna malt beer and 1 sample of the Munich malt beer in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the sample that was unique. While 12 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to accurately identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, 13 (p=0.007) were capable of doing so, indicating participants in this xBmt were able to reliably distinguish a beer made with 100% Vienna malt from one made with 100% Munich I malt.

The 13 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 6 reported preferring the Vienna malt beer, 5 liked the Munich malt beer more, and 2 reported having no preference despite noticing a difference.

My Impressions: As someone who has used Vienna and Munich malts in various amounts in many beers, I’d developed a belief they produced starkly difference flavors. To my utter surprise, both the Vienna and Munich malt beers were way more similar than I expected, to the point I had to focus really hard on the 7 triangle tests I attempted. While I was able to identify the unique sample in 5 of these trials, I could definitely understand how some might struggle to tell them apart, especially when unaware of the variable. I perceived a stronger malt character in the Munich malt beer that was very inline with what I expect from a Märzen, some toasted bread character and a slight hint of honey was present as well. The Vienna malt beer had a similar malt sweetness, though it was lighter on the palate and had a very curious raw bread dough thing going on.

| DISCUSSION |

German-style base malts like Vienna and Munich not only make up the majority of grists in certain classic European lager and ale recipes, but have become a popular option for brewers of more modern styles looking to impart unique characteristics to their beer. Given their differences in kilning that leads to obvious differences in beer color, it’s not terribly surprising tasters in this xBmt were able to reliably distinguish a beer made with Vienna malt as 100% of the grist from one made with the same amount of Munich malt.

What I do find kind of surprising is the unexpected number of participants who weren’t able to tell these beers apart, 8 in total, which prior to my own triangle test attempts I admittedly thought might be an indication of their tasting abilities. It was only after choosing the wrong sample in 2 out of my 7 trials that I realized these malts weren’t as drastically different as I’d previously presumed. While the differences were certainly noticeable, the similarities between the beers were more obvious when unaware of the color differences, both shared pleasant crackery and toasty notes. However, where it seems they diverged, based on participant feedback as well as my own impressions, is that the Vienna malt beer was lighter on the palate with a raw bread dough character while the Munich malt beer was slightly richer with notes of honey and toasted bread crust. Different, indeed, but not nearly as obvious as I expected.

I generally keep bulk Vienna and Munich malts on hand, typically using them in conjunction with other base malts to add a toasty character to my beers. Having used both as the feature malt numerous times in the past, I’d developed a pretty good idea of what to expect from them, and while this xBmt was validating, I was pleasantly surprised with how much I enjoyed the Munich malt beer. It was so good, in fact, that I plan to use the same simple grist for Oktoberfestbier I make in the future.

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

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...