Originally posted by joet
Originally posted by Degarth
What is the problem enzymes or unmalted barley?
Is this true? I honestly don’t know. I don’t even want to offer an opinion on it before I know for sure.
x2. Absolutely warrants some additional info and exploration. |
"What is the problem enzymes or unmalted barley?"
Mainly enzymes - their dubious provenance and my opinion that they’re not really needed as beer should have a majority of malt in the grist.
Unmalted barley doesn’t taste anywhere near as good as malted barley, that’s just the way it is - try chewing malt and plain barley to see the difference.
My big issue with this whole thing, though, is that brewers will see it as a way of making cheap beer with cheap ingredients rather than malt... drink corn beer if you want, I know what I want the base grain of my beer to be and what I want my beer to taste of!
As I’ve said before, maybe this is due to US malt being pretty tasteless so no-one would notice, but here in Europe I just don’t see why anyone would want to use this stuff except to cut costs - and when brewers cut costs the flavour suffers.
I’ve no problem with brewers experimenting with grains, go for it, but I see a deeper reason why these things would be used and I don’t like it... |
Originally posted by Gazza
"What is the problem enzymes or unmalted barley?"
Mainly enzymes - their dubious provenance and my opinion that they’re not really needed as beer should have a majority of malt in the grist.
Unmalted barley doesn’t taste anywhere near as good as malted barley, that’s just the way it is - try chewing malt and plain barley to see the difference.
My big issue with this whole thing, though, is that brewers will see it as a way of making cheap beer with cheap ingredients rather than malt... drink corn beer if you want, I know what I want the base grain of my beer to be and what I want my beer to taste of!
As I’ve said before, maybe this is due to US malt being pretty tasteless so no-one would notice, but here in Europe I just don’t see why anyone would want to use this stuff except to cut costs - and when brewers cut costs the flavour suffers.
I’ve no problem with brewers experimenting with grains, go for it, but I see a deeper reason why these things would be used and I don’t like it...
This again? Really?
Sigh. Yes, everything over here sucks, North Americans bring NOTHING to the table in the beer world, everyone should only drink cask real ale made by greasy-haired gnomes in anoracs. |
|
|
Originally posted by HogTownHarry
This again? Really?
Yes, really.
I’ve been told this by several brewers in the states who say standard US malt isn’t very flavoursome. Obviously there is some available, but it costs.
Ask some brewers and see what they say. I’m just telling it as I’ve been told. |
There are number of enzymes that can be added at various stages of the brewing process that allow the brewer to better control the final product.
Enzymes can increase attenuation, reduce viscosity, control diacetyl and provide other support for improving and controlling the taste beer.
When this turns into a purist argument, that such practices necessarily reduce the flavor and quality of beer, we are most probably moving into the realm of quixotic.
It doesn’t surprise me that common purist hearsay suggests something that isn’t religiously acceptable must also be of inferior in quality and flavour.
Methinks that given 10 beer purists and 10 beers - 5 enzyme-using and 5 non enzyme-using - you’d get a rate of beer identification somewhere in the neighborhood of chance.
|
Look, if brewers only did things for cost and made sucky beer there would be no craft brew industry. If it tastes good then good we’ll buy it. If not we won’t- don;t worry, the market will take care of it (unless there are health or environment issues, but I haven’t heard any complaints about that- hard to see how there would be any- this is not like genetic engineered foods). |
Originally posted by joet
Originally posted by Degarth
What is the problem enzymes or unmalted barley?
I don’t get it either.
It seems there’s an assumption that (unmalted) barley will be enzymatically broken down in a way that’s distinct and appreciably qualitatively inferior to the way it’s broken down through the malting enzymatic process.
Is this true? I honestly don’t know. I don’t even want to offer an opinion on it before I know for sure.
But I will volunteer myself to taste the side by side difference to anyone wanting their beer tasted.
Joe, I don’t think the enzymatic breakdown is the difference, it’s the kilning of the malt that adds the flavor to it, and that is what you will be missing if you use unmalted barley and enzymes.
This all comes down to a subjective taste argument. My malt tastes better, blah, blah blah. American malt is almost uniformly more neutral in flavor than English malt. One of the main reasons for this, besides the specific barley varieties that we grow here, is that the maltsters’ largest customers are in the business of selling beers that don’t taste much of malt, or of anything for that matter.
This isn’t the only reason, but I believe that it is one of the reasons that American brewers gravitated toward hoppier beers once they had started at the English model. We didn’t have the rich malt character, but the neutral character of American malt is quite good for showcasing hops. Of course, many American brewers brew with English malt, so this is not anything like a blanket generalization. |
