Two-Row vs. Six-Row Barley: A Brewer's зерно Dilemma - mercedesbenzxentrysoftwaresubscription.store

For homebrewers and craft beer enthusiasts alike, the debate between two-row and six-row barley is a classic зерно discussion. Sitting back with a delicious Belgian ale, it’s easy to ponder the nuances of malted barley and its impact on our favorite brews. While both two-row and six-row barley are readily available, particularly in regions like mine, understanding their differences is key to crafting the perfect beer. Many brewers lean towards two-row barley, citing its superior extract potential. However, the actual difference is marginal, often only 1 to 2 percent, barely discernible at the homebrewing scale. Personally, I often favor two-row, though pinpointing exactly why remains elusive, especially considering both types contribute to many exceptional beers. Perhaps the allure of two-row is simply a matter of perceived sophistication.

2row-vs-6row

The American Barley Question: Two-Row vs. Six-Row

The two-row versus six-row debate is largely an American-centric question in the brewing world. Globally, six-row barley is predominantly reserved for animal feed, not beer production. Despite the common misconception that six-row barley was specifically developed for enhanced yield, it’s actually a naturally occurring variant resulting from a pair of mutations, one dominant and one recessive. Interestingly, both two-row and six-row barley have ancient origins, with a long history in agriculture.

Modern breeding advancements over the past half-century have significantly narrowed the gap between two-row and six-row barley varieties. For large-scale breweries, the economies of scale often render many of the inherent differences inconsequential. However, subtle distinctions persist in kernel size, extract yield, protein content, and enzyme levels. Detailed information on these aspects is readily accessible online for those with a keen interest in the technicalities of зерно.

Morphology Matters: Kernel Structure and Milling

Two-row barley kernels typically exhibit symmetry and uniform size. This uniformity leads to consistent water absorption rates, synchronized germination, and even drying. Furthermore, their symmetrical shape simplifies milling, particularly with two-roller mills commonly used by homebrewers. In contrast, six-row barley features a symmetrical central kernel row, but the two lateral rows possess kernels that are shorter, thinner, and slightly twisted. Maltsters often categorize six-row barley into various kernel size fractions to account for their differing water uptake and germination speeds. Large breweries frequently employ six-roller mills equipped with screening systems to effectively mill the diverse kernel sizes of six-row barley into grist. For homebrewers, a coarser grist particle size is generally acceptable.

Malting Insights: Floor Malting vs. Modern Techniques

Scott and Cherie Stihler offer an insightful explanation of traditional floor malting on their website. While floor malting has largely been replaced by large rotating drums in modern malting facilities, understanding the floor malting process provides a valuable conceptual framework. Even though distribution is a critical factor in lautering, large breweries often utilize mash filters with filter cloths, shallower grain beds, and high pressure systems, minimizing the impact of barley type on this stage.

Post-malting, the plumper kernels are typically re-blended and designated as brewer’s malt. The thinner kernels, characterized by higher enzymatic activity, are often sold as distiller’s malt. The thinnest kernels are relegated to animal feed.

In the 1960s, the introduction of the six-row cultivar Larker, named for “large kernels,” significantly reduced the size disparity between kernel types. While Larker is no longer used in malting, subsequent cultivars have continued the trend of increasing plumpness in six-row barley. Despite these advancements, two-row varieties generally maintain a higher level of plumpness. Why is plumpness important? Plumpness serves as a moderate indicator of malt extract yield, although the yield difference between modern six-row and two-row barley is now only about 1 to 2 percent.

Six-Row Barley: Pros and Cons for Brewing

Six-Row Pros:

Higher Protein, Thicker Husk: Six-row barley contains more protein, less starch, and a thicker husk compared to two-row barley.
Faster Sugar Conversion: The elevated protein levels in six-row barley can accelerate the conversion to fermentable sugars during mashing. This is particularly advantageous for homebrewers employing higher mash-in temperatures, leading to more efficient conversion.
Enzyme Powerhouse: Six-row barley boasts a higher enzyme content, crucial for converting starch into fermentable sugars. This abundance of enzymes enables the conversion of adjunct starches (which are enzyme-deficient) during the mash. This explains why many large breweries utilize six-row barley, allowing for the incorporation of less expensive adjunct grains.
Cost-Effective: Six-row barley is typically less expensive per pound, offering cost savings. The ability to use higher proportions of cheaper adjuncts further enhances its economic appeal.
Extraction and Fermentability Boost: Supplementing two-row malt with some six-row malt can enhance extraction, shorten conversion time, and improve fermentability, especially when using a significant percentage of adjuncts.
Higher Yield Per Acre: Six-row barley generally produces a higher yield per acre compared to two-row varieties.
Improved Lautering: The thicker husks of six-row barley contribute to a better filter bed during lautering, potentially improving wort separation.

However, the high enzyme and protein levels in six-row barley generally preclude its exclusive use in beer recipes. Adjunct grains offer a more economical alternative. Unmalted cereals like corn and rice are commonly combined with malt to balance the higher protein content of six-row barley, with adjunct percentages reaching up to 40% in six-row grists. While newer malt strains have reduced the necessity for adjuncts, their use remains economically viable and, in some large breweries, a matter of tradition.

Six-Row Cons:

DMS Potential: Six-row barley is more prone to the formation of dimethyl sulfide (DMS), a compound produced during protein breakdown in malting. While subtle DMS notes are acceptable in certain beer styles, excessive levels can impart an undesirable cooked corn or sweet corn flavor.
Protein Break and Haze: The higher protein content can result in increased break material during wort boiling and cooling, potentially leading to protein haze in the finished beer. Careful management of the hot break is crucial for coagulation and removal.
Polyphenol and Astringency: Six-row husks are rich in polyphenols (tannins), which can contribute to protein-polyphenol haze and impart an astringent taste to the beer.
Lower Starch Content: Higher protein content often correlates with less starch available for conversion during malting. Six-row malting barley typically contains 12-13.5 percent protein, while two-row ranges from 11-13 percent. Malting processes have minimal impact on protein levels.
Malting Challenges: High protein levels can extend steeping times during malting, potentially causing inconsistent germination, particularly when mixing barley batches with varying protein levels to meet malt protein specifications.
Beer Quality Issues: Elevated protein levels can contribute to other beer quality concerns, such as color control.
Syrup Adjunct Interactions: Using syrup adjuncts with six-row barley requires careful consideration. Syrups, produced by enzymatically hydrolyzing corn starch into fermentable sugars, are added to the wort in fermentable form. This can push the wort beyond acceptable enzyme and soluble protein levels when combined with enzyme-rich six-row barley cultivars.

Two-Row Barley: Advantages and Disadvantages in Brewing

Two-Row Pros:

Drought Tolerance: Two-row barley exhibits greater drought tolerance compared to six-row varieties.
Higher Extract Potential: Two-row barley generally yields more beer per unit of malt. Its lower enzyme content, lower protein, higher starch content, and thinner husk contribute to a greater extract potential. While less significant at the homebrew level, this is a major consideration for large-scale breweries.
Mellower Flavor Profile: Many brewers argue that two-row barley imparts a smoother, more mellow flavor to beer compared to the potentially зерновой character of six-row.

Two-Row Cons:

Adjunct Limitations: The lower diastatic (enzymatic) power of two-row barley becomes a limiting factor when incorporating a substantial proportion of unmalted adjunct grains.
Higher Cost: Two-row barley is typically more expensive per pound than six-row barley.
Adjunct Overuse: Large breweries, in pursuit of cost optimization, sometimes use adjunct grains in amounts exceeding what is strictly necessary. Excessive adjunct use can result in beers with diminished body and maltiness.

Resources for Further зерно Exploration

This overview provides a concise comparison of two-row and six-row barley. For those seeking deeper knowledge, the following resources offer valuable insights:

Brewers’ Market Guide Online’s “Special Focus: Malt.”
The Brewers’ Handbook – A comprehensive starting point for brewing information.
USDA’s Cooperative Extension System Offices or local agricultural schools for regional agricultural insights.

Recipe Inspiration: Pre-Prohibition and “Imperial” Pilsners

117 Pre-Prohibition Style Pils

Ingredients for 5.5 U.S. gallons (20.82 L)

Recipe provided by Misha Suggs

5.0 lb (2.26 kg) six-row malt
4.5 lb (2.04 kg) pale two-row malt
2.0 lb (907 g) flaked rice
1.0 oz (28 g) Spalt pellet hops (5% a.a.), 60 min
1.0 oz (28 g) Argentine Cascade pellet hops* (3.4% a.a.), 15 min
1.0 oz (28 g) Spalt pellet hops (5% a.a.), 5 min
1.0 oz (28 g) Argentine Cascade pellet hops (3.4% a.a.), 5 min
1 tsp Irish moss, 5 min
WLP-800 Pilsner yeast
Brewhouse Efficiency: 70%
Original Gravity: 1.053
IBUs: 32
SRM: 3.4 (9.4 for extract version)

Directions: Perform a 30 minute protein rest at 120° F (49° C), and a 60 minute saccharification rest at 150° F (66° C). 60 minute boil. Ferment at 55° F (13° C). Follow your preferred lagering regimen.

*Note: Argentine Cascade hops are not Cascade-like. They are more similar to a cross between Hallertau and Goldings. If you can’t get them, substitute with Hallertau (or go all-out with Spalt; that’s what I’d do next time).

Extract Version: Replace pale malts with 6.5 lb (2.95 kg) Pilsner malt extract syrup and flaked rice with 21 oz (595 g) brewer’s rice syrup. Dissolve extract in water to preferred boil volume and proceed with boil.

#122 “Imperial” Pils