Getting More Maltiness In My Amber Ales

[cpsmusic]

Youre asking why the recipe you are following, using home methods, isn't the same as the commercial example......... you need to consider that the process between a 30L batch and that of producing many megalitres is going to be considerably different. One of the experts such as Thirsty or Mark can probably clarify, but I was of the mind that for one thing, commercial breweries would go for a far greater conversion efficiency that is practical to you & me in our shed.

So basically you're saying that it's not possible to produce the same result at home using an identical recipe?

If that's the case, then as others have suggested, I might try a different recipe.

I'm still interested in the differences in commercial brewing processes that can't be replicated at home.

 

[Nick JD]

Can you elaborate? I use plenty of UK style yeasts which push esters and get plenty of what I call 'maltiness'.

Malt sweetness in the aroma can be smothered by esters. As you raise the glass you get fruitiness rather than maltiness. My Amber Ales using CPA yeast are a classic example of this. Aroma is pears and bananas and they smell sweet - caraaroma is a classic at blending with esters. Bloody brilliant "sweetner" for the fruit on the nose.

When you taste the beer your nose is getting a lot of estery flavours and these can override the malty sweetness on your tongue. The maltiness provides a "sweetness" to the fruit, rather than sitting on its own. It's highlighting the ester profile. Malts that give a dried fruit character can also blend with esters to a point where it's difficult to know if the plums and raisins are ester, or malt. When I use S04 with Nelson and Caraaroma I get melons and nectarines; with US05 I get more goosberry and citrus. Esters can change the maltiness as much as the hop aroma IMO.

A yeast that produces no esters leaves the malt sweetness, malty - not fruity.

YMMV. I've found with recipe development that removing one thing can be more powerful than adding more of another.

 

[manticle]

So basically you're saying that it's not possible to produce the same result at home using an identical recipe?

If that's the case, then as others have suggested, I might try a different recipe.

I'm still interested in the differences in commercial brewing processes that can't be replicated at home.

Actually one thing that I forgot that is dead simple and requires no recipe adjustment or step mashes etc - extended boil.

Boil for 120-180 minutes instead of 60. Plain base like maris + extended boil will give good malt complexity that belies a simple grain bill.

Traditional doppelbocks and scottish wee heavies rely on this as far as I understand and my experience of trying this has been positive.

I've found with recipe development that removing one thing can be more powerful than adding more of another.

Not sure my experience quite tallies up with yours on the others but I do agree with this sentence.

Essentially, it's about balancing what you have to get the right combo. Subtracting can be as effective (or more so) than adding.

 

[Bizier]

The difference between HB and commercial batches is huge. When a commercial brewer changes simple equipment, all other things being the same, they still expect a change in the final product, and that is comparing apples and apples.

The recipe is only part of the story. If you really wanted to clone this you would require all the detailed information about mash, chemistry, boil, chill and ferment/cellar regime. Yeast strain will make a huge difference the malt and hop profiles in the finished beer.

Then there is also the factor of relying on memory, where the beer is not actually available for a side-by-side.

 

[a_quintal]

Thirsty is on the money, for mine an all Vienna amber can be the great, but maybe a half and half is a good place to start unless you want to seriously up the hops to. I like S-04, it is very neutral and drops like a rock when its finished, the yeast MS use is I believe very similar to Mauri 514 Australian Ale, widely scorned on AHB but praised in a lot of other countries where its sold as a premium imported yeast - go figure anyway it works well in this type of beer.

Mark

Last year i was at MS for a tour for liquor retailers and after a few bevviess with one of the brewers he told me they use WLP002 for all their ales. I'm not sure if he was pulling my leg though.

 

[Jay Cee]

So basically you're saying that it's not possible to produce the same result at home using an identical recipe?

If that's the case, then as others have suggested, I might try a different recipe.

I'm still interested in the differences in commercial brewing processes that can't be replicated at home.

Yep, that's what I'm saying for some commercial beers. Whether JSAA uses the same base malt as available to us, I cannot say. A case to examine is the popular Timothy Taylor Landlord. A member here has a well regarded recipe that most agree comes close to the original. But if you look at his grain bill, you will see specialty malts, whereas the brewery doesn't use any, because they have their maltser supply them with a specific preparation, and hey use that as the sole grain addition.

For all we know, a major commercial producer such as James Squire (ie the Lion Nathan group of breweries) also specifies their own custom maltings, which is not reflected in the bags we buy as hobby producers. This is an unqualified statement, but I'm just throwing it out there.

As for your passion in brewing an exact version of JSAA, I would suggest that you stick to the recipe you have, keep at it, and tweak a few things along the way. For starters, as Thirsty said, if the malt profile is lacking for your desired goal, use another base malt.

Out of interest, what makes you believe you have the exact recipe from Malt Shovel? Can you publish it here in this thread, as it was received by you?

 

[jphowman]

Bit of a late reply, but who cares.

The first thing that sprang to mind when I look at the OP was carbonation, since maltiness for me is always tied up with mouthfeel.

I always find spritzy beers seem less malty unless they have a big OG.

 

[wessmith]

Bit of a late reply, but who cares.

The first thing that sprang to mind when I look at the OP was carbonation, since maltiness for me is always tied up with mouthfeel.

I always find spritzy beers seem less malty unless they have a big OG.

Actually the secret ingredient for the "maltiness" is Munich malt. And good attenuation - down to 2.2 to 2.4 P (roughly 1009 to 1010)

Wes

 

[dr K]

Why the hell not? i do it all the time. Vienna and Munich ARE base malts. Too much complicated advice about this sort of thing.... you want maltier beer, use more malty malt. Easy.

Guess it depends on what you call maltiness, but I figure that TB and Wes have a similar opinion as me...yes mash regimes influence your beer, yes yeast choice influences your beer, but if you really want more malt use appropriate base grain/grains . I happen to be big fan of "mild malt", i suppose its design is to give a good malt body to a lower alcohol beer but it gives a huge malt body to a higher alc beer (too much for some)
As Wes points out you need good attenuation to differentiate between sweet and malt.

K

 

[Screwtop]

Guess it depends on what you call maltiness, but I figure that TB and Wes have a similar opinion as me...yes mash regimes influence your beer, yes yeast choice influences your beer, but if you really want more malt use appropriate base grain/grains . I happen to be big fan of "mild malt", i suppose its design is to give a good malt body to a lower alcohol beer but it gives a huge malt body to a higher alc beer (too much for some)
As Wes points out you need good attenuation to differentiate between sweet and malt.

K

As Wes points out you need good attenuation to differentiate between sweet and malt.

Spot on K, maybe thats why they use sugar with their lazy ale yeast.


Screwy

 

[manticle]

There are at least 4 people who have posted in this thread (actually 5*) who have a wealth of knowledge and experience that I respect: wessmith, thirsty boy, dr K, bizier and MHB.

All of you agree - adding more munich malt = more maltiness BUT the OP has specifically asked the question - how do I keep the same ingredients but still get more maltiness? What can I change in my processes to get more maltiness?'

Attenuation is certainly one thing at least two have touched on (thus looking at mash regimes is a potential answer). Bizier also mentioned mash regimes, fermentation, water chemistry and even chilling methods etc so maybe a seemingly complicated answer is the answer (or part thereof) to the question asked.

* actually 6 now screwy popped his mostly absent but much missed head in.

 

[Plastic Man]

I remember reading articles in both BYOB and the old Brewing Techniques about brewers looking to up the "maltyness" of their beers and purposely dropping the efficiency of their mash to achieve a noticeable effect. If you have the room, (or do a smaller batch) try a no sparge mash at a lower efficiency (more grain) and see if it makes a difference.

 

[Bizier]

so maybe a seemingly complicated answer is the answer (or part thereof) to the question asked.

Or, you could take a simple shortcut to making it more malty.

 

[manticle]

Or, you could take a simple shortcut to making it more malty.

Of course you could take a short cut.

However when the question is expanded to include:

I don't think I was clear enough with my original question - what really interests me is, assuming I have the right recipe, why aren't I getting the same level of maltiness? That is, what can I do wrt the brewing process that will increase the maltiness?

then it's possible that something other than shortcuts are sought.