Roasting in a SMaSH

**AnOldUR** · 04-06-2009, 02:22 PM

From what I’ve read the SMaSH concept may have been coined on HBT or if not, at least gained its popularity here. There have been some differences in opinion on roasting a portion of the grain. I figured, what better place to settle the argument.

My thought is that if you start with a single type of malt from one maltster, you’re good. Saying you can’t roast is like saying you can’t do a decoction. Both have the potential to change the color and flavor character of the finished product. What’s next? No protein rest? And heaven forbid you FWH. Wouldn’t want to change the bittering from what is expected. To me SMaSH is self explanatory. Start with single ingredients. What is done after that is up to the brewer.

The reason to SMaSH shouldn’t be limited to discovering what ingredients can produce in their simplest form. It’s also a challenge to explore what can be achieved only using the basics.

Edit:
If you agree or disagree, please explain. It would be interesting to hear both sides.

The masses have spoken and the results are clear . . . .
Mob rules: No roasting allowed in a SMaSH.

**Dr_Deathweed** · 04-06-2009, 02:39 PM

I agree with you, SMaSH just defines what goes into it, not how you use it. I have done a SMaSH with 10lbs Munich and 2oz Willamette several times varying my yeast, fermentation temperatures, mash and hop schedule, boil length, etc. and ended up with some VERY different beers (all of them tasty IMHO

). It's gotten to the point I look at a complex recipe and think how I can pull off somthing similar with only what i have in stock

**Revvy** · 04-06-2009, 02:40 PM

I don't think the issue is not to roast in a Smash...it's not to roast the grain in the first round of smashing....a lot of smasher have brewed multiple batches of the smash, oaking it, roasting it, changing the hopping routine. I just know when I was putting together my first smash, people suggested not roasting on the first batch...to make the first one as clean as possible...one grain/one hop..no alterations....That way you have a good "baseline" beer to compare all subsequesnt versions to.

After that anything went.

**mmb** · 04-06-2009, 02:45 PM

Que Sera, Sera.

As long as it has one malt type and one hop verity you're good to go.

Evan! · 04-06-2009, 02:51 PM

Disagree. It's not a SMaSH unless you roast/toast the entire portion of the grain bill. Unlike varying the yeast, fermentation temps, mash/hop schedule, etc., you're drastically altering one of the primary components. I mean, think about it: by roasting your 2-row grain, for instance, you've just turned it from pale malt to special roast or brown malt or aromatic, for instance. The purpose of a SMaSH is "single malt, single hop". Outside of different kinds of grain (wheat, rye, etc.), all of the "specialty grains" we talk about are just modified barley. By modifying your barley, you're doing the exact same thing as adding specialty roasted/toasted grains.

But at the end of the day, does it really matter? No.

Evan! · 04-06-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmb

Que Sera, Sera.

As long as it has one malt type and one hop verity you're good to go.

By that line of thinking, I could put pale malt, crystal 120L, aromatic, black roasted malt, and melanoidin malt in there, and still call it "SMaSH"...after all, every one of those specialty grains are made with the same grain: barley. Once you roast a base grain, it's no longer the same "malt type", any more than 2-row is the same type as aromatic malt. I mean, are we worried about malt type, or grain type? If the former, then roasting absolutely changes the malt type; most specialty grains are nothing but base malt that has been roasted. How is this different?

**Edcculus** · 04-06-2009, 03:10 PM

I agree with Evan!. A maltster probably uses the same variety of malt to make chocolate malt, or whatever type of roasted malt you would make in your kitchen.

**Laughing_Gnome_Invisible** · 04-06-2009, 03:16 PM

I use SMaSH as an educational tool. By reducing the variables to a minimum I get to understand what is going on.

My goal is to make a good bitter using all Maris Otter with different combinations of humidity and roasting times and temps. If I did that and used just one hop, there is no way I would call it a SMaSH. It would be too complex in it's profile to be reduced to that term IMO

**AnOldUR** · 04-06-2009, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan!

How is this different?

The difference is that the individual brewer starts out with a single malt. What they do with it is up to them. And by single malt, I would also qualify it as being from a single source. To me, mixing Munton's Maris Otter with Crisp's would make it not a SMaSH.

eschatz · 04-06-2009, 03:17 PM

I always thought that doing a Smash beer was a way to get back to the old style of beers where a brewer only had barley and one type of local hop around. In this way I feel like it would be acceptable to try to make the best beer possible with the few ingredients you have on hand. That would include roasting to help the beer out.

Now, that being said I don't think any of us are trying to go completely back to old ways and use open fermenters and such. The other side of this is the simplicity of a Smash beer as opposed to the historical approach. If you think the Smash arises from this goal then I would agree with not roasting your grains to achieve other flavors/colors.