exBEERiment | Grain Comparison: 2-Row Pale Malt vs. 6-Row Pale Malt In An American Lager

Author: Jake Huolihan

Known for having higher diastatic power than malts made of standard 2-row barley, 6-row barley malt was the primary grain used by early American brewers due largely to its agronomic traits and hence availability. In fact, based on my review of brewing history, it would seem the reliance on 6-row barley in brewing is uniquely American, as countries such as Germany and England were sold on 2-row malts. Coincidentally, American brewers at the time were using relatively high percentages of non-diastatic adjuncts, so the use of 6-row malt worked in their favor, providing the enzymatic power required to convert the starches from corn and rice into fermentable sugar.

It wasn’t until the latter half of the 20th century that American brewers began adopting 2-row barley malt for use in beer production, motivated perhaps by its international prominence as well as its higher carbohydrate and lower protein levels. While 6-row malt is used by Big Beer to this day to produce their notably flavor-neutral Pilsners, craft brewers rely almost exclusively on 2-row malt, which they claim contributes a fuller malt flavor compared to the graininess imparted by 6-row malt.

Curious about the numbers? When looking at a barley stalk from the top down, 2-row varieties appear to have 2 rows of barley kernals while 6-row varieties appear to have 6 rows. The number is a literal reference to the arrangement of the kernels on the barley stalk.

In researching 2-row and 6-row malts, I discovered there was a paucity of informational sensory data, but rather a bunch of anecdotal and non-comparative evaluations. Having never brewed with 6-row malt before, I was curious if what I’d read was true and designed an xBmt to test it out!

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between beers produced with either 2-row or 6-row pale malt.

| METHODS |

Given the nature of the xBmt, I thought it fitting that each beer be made with 100% of either base malt.

Sechsyduo

I prepared a single large starter of Imperial Yeast L17 Harvest a few days ahead of time.

The night before brewing I collected the full volume of water for each batch and adjusted both to the same target profile. I then weighed out identical amounts of each malt, which looked the same to my eyes.

Each set of grain was milled in preparation for the following day’s brew.

I awoke the next morning and immediately turned on the elements to begin heating one batch of water. Since this brew day required separate mashes, I staggered the start of the second batch by 20 minutes. Once the water was slightly warmer than my target strike temperature, I transferred the liquor to my mash tun for a brief preheat before mashing in and checking to ensure both hit the same mash temperature.

About 15 minutes into each mash, I pulled samples for pH readings and found they were right in line with Bru’n Water predictions.

The mashes were left to rest for 60 minutes.

At the conclusion of each mash, I collected the sweet wort separate kettles an began heating them up. Both worts were boiled for 60 minutes with hops added at the times stated in the recipe.

The worts were quickly chilled as soon as they were done boiling.

Hydrometer measurements showed the 2-row wort had an ever so slightly higher OG than the 6-row wort, and to my eyes, the 6-row wort seemed a hair darker.

Equal amounts of wort were racked to separate Brew Buckets and placed in my chamber where they were left to finishing chilling to my desired fermentation temperature.

When the worts stabilized at 50°F/10°C, I evenly split the decanted starter between them before dosing each with 90 seconds of pure oxygen. Fermentation was kicking within 18 hours and proceeded similarly in both beers. I stole a first set of hydrometer samples a week after pitching then a second set 3 days later that were the same, indicating the beers were done fermenting.

Skipping my typical gelatin fining process, I installed a Clear Beer Draught System in each keg then proceeded with kegging the beers.

The filled kegs were placed in my cool keezer on gas and allowed to lager for a month before I served them to unsuspecting participants.

| RESULTS |

A total of 20 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 1 sample of the beer made with 2-row pale malt and 2 samples of the beer made with 6-row pale malt in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the unique sample. At this sample size, 11 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, though a total of 12 (p=0.01) made the accurate selection. These results indicate participants in this xBmt were able to reliably distinguish a beer made with 2-row pale malt from one made entirely of 6-row pale malt.

The 12 participants who made the accurate selection on the triangle test were instructed to complete a brief preference survey comparing only the beers that were different. Preference was split right down the middle with both the 2-row and 6-row beers garnering the preference of 4 tasters each. Another 3 tasters reported having no preference despite noticing a difference while 1 person said they perceived no difference between the beers.

My Impressions: I was consistently and confidently able to identify the odd-beer-out over a series of semi-blind triangle tests. To my biased palate, the beer made with 2-row was very flavorful with a rich malty sweetness while the 6-row beer had what I perceived as an almost dirty character, it wasn’t bad per se, just not quite as clean and flavorful as the 2-row beer. I didn’t have any problems drinking either beer, both were quite good, but I definitely preferred the beer made with 2-row.

| DISCUSSION |

Base grain provides the canvas upon which the unique character of a beer is built, and though it may rarely take center stage, it’s role is absolutely necessary. While American brewers historically relied on malts made from 6-row barley, most modern breweries these days are using 2-row variants for both its higher extract potential as well as the belief it imparts a fuller malt character to beer. However, there are those who have claimed 2-row and 6-row malts are largely interchangeable and produce no real flavor differences, an assertion contradicted by the fact tasters in this xBmt were capable of distinguishing beers made entirely of either malt.

In addition to tasters being able to reliably tell the beers apart, there were also some objectively observable differences that aligned with expectations. Not only did the 2-row beer have a slightly higher OG, ostensibly as a function of its higher extract potential, but it was also a bit paler in color than its 6-row counterpart.

Participants aren’t asked to describe what it is they perceived as being different, so there’s really no way of knowing for sure, but to my palate the 2-row beer had a fuller malt character I’ve come to expect whereas the beer made with 6-row malt was lacking a bit. Either way, the fact an equal number of tasters chose either sample as their favorite supports the notion that preference is subjective. As for me, while I did enjoy the 6-row beer just fine, I’ll be sticking with 2-row malts in my brewing.

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

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

FACEBOOK   |   TWITTER   |   INSTAGRAM

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!