What's up with all the recipes with Munich malt??

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Golddiggie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
13,768
Reaction score
1,914
Location
Living free in the 603
I've been noticing a trend lately with lots of recipes coming up using Munich malt. Recipes like porters, barley wines, IPA's, and others that really don't use it (normally).

Looking into the malt a bit comes up with: "Primarily used for Dark German Lagers (Bock, Schwarzbier, Oktoberfest)." I'm seeing it in recipes that are NOT German lagers (of any shade).

So why are so many (it seems) using this malt? Especially in styles that don't fall under the categories you would expect to find it in. While I've seen it also described as adding malt character, you can easily (IMO/IME) do that in/with the mash and/or by proper yeast selection. I see using Munich for this as a cop-out/cheat. Or looking to get an end result by using the easiest method. IMO, the easy way is very rarely the better/best way. At least when it comes to recipe formulation and mashing.

Hate me if you like, but that's my take on it.
 
You may call it a "cheat", but I call it character malt.

It's a rich flavorful malt that can really help with a malt backbone on a beer like an IPA. It's not like a crystal malt that people just throw in- it's usually a carefully thought out choice.

It's not that easy to manipulate a mash to emulate a warm malty flavor. Malt flavor comes from malt, not a mash. Using a malt that has a more pronounced malt flavor will enhance the maltiness of the beer.
 
Guess I'm just jaded by the base malt I am using. I'm using good/great UK 2 row and Maris Otter for all my batches. I mash in the temperatures to give the body I want. I also use yeast that leaves a good amount of malt character/flavors in the brew.

With how many recipes I've seen posted up with it, it really seems more like a cheat or not well thought out addition.

I put a lot of thought into my own recipes. After the first time it's brewed, I'll tweak it as needed for the next time. I also make sure the GU:BU ratio is going to give me what I want, along with the IBU's within my desired range.

I'm brewing styles from the British Isles, so [IMO] Munich malt really doesn't have a place. All but one of my malts is of UK origin. IF I could get an UK version of that malt, I would. Also, all my hops are UK varieties. Same with my yeast.

IF I was brewing German beers, I'd probably use Munich.
 
I use it for a flavor and color I don't seem to get from crystal.

Is using roast barley in a red ale "cheating" because a roast barley data sheet says to use in stouts and porters?
 
Roasted Barley is also for brown ales, which (depending on how you look at things) a red ale could be of the same lineage. You can also use chocolate malt to get the color addition for a red ale. Also, the percentage you use of either is tiny in a red. It's for color, NOT a major part of the grist. Talking about <2% here compared with the 20-50% of the grist I've been seeing.
 
Roasted Barley is also for brown ales, which (depending on how you look at things) a red ale could be of the same lineage. You can also use chocolate malt to get the color addition for a red ale. Also, the percentage you use of either is tiny in a red. It's for color, NOT a major part of the grist. Talking about <2% here compared with the 20-50% of the grist I've been seeing.

Okay, understood.

But I'm not using 20-50% Munich either. :drunk:
 
I use Munich for the color and flavor. Never really thought of it as a way to cheat at getting body. Jamil uses it in a lot of the recipes in his book. Hell, the kolsch recipe uses a 1/4 pound. To each his own. I usually have around 10 pounds on hand.
 
In looking through Brewing Classic Styles, I see that Munich is NOT used in any of the classic English styles, including stouts, pale ales, and IPA's. If you look at the "American" styles of these beers you will see Munich used, but hey, the "American" styles blow these out with big hop additions too.

The Amber Hybrids use it but Kolsch is the only Light Hybrid that does which makes sense, it's German.
 
If you want to go strictly by tradition/historical accuracy then you are correct, Munich shouldn't be used in British beers (though mild malt-very similar- and/or various incarnations of "amber" malt-can be similar-could be used and are traditional though harder to find these days).

In addition to Germans, Belgians have been using Munich forever for some types of beers and the US owes its brewing tradition more to German immigrants than to any other group. However I'd argue that, as with most things cultural in the US, brewing here is kind of a hodgepodge, a mash-up of traditions with no hard, fast rules. So I'd consider the use of Munich in just about any American style beer appropriate.

In practical terms, though, regardless of what style you're brewing, the proof is in the pudding as they say. If using a high percentage of Munich in a recipe produces a desired and tasty result (as it often does) then it is absolutely appropriate.
 
It's bizarre that you would consider the use of Munich malt to be "cheating". It has a flavor and use of it's own, and it isn't just for the styles that you mentioned. I like it because it adds a nice malty quality but ferments well unlike crystal malts. The only malt I could really see as being a cheat would be melanoidin malt, for use in replacing a decoction mash. This thread reminds me of the one where the guy said that the only purpose of brewing sour beers was to cover up the flaws of a poorly made brew. Then he went on to say that he hasn't actually tried any sour beers.
 
Leave the style police at home for a minute.

Ever make a beer of 100% munich? I did it for a club, we each took a gallon and added a different yeast. All the beers were good. Mine was Wyeast 1007. Delicious.

I think I mashed 21 lbs.
 
American styles are non-traditional by nature. Anything goes, just like the country. The only style we have that is indigenous is Steam Beer as far as I know.
 
Droot said:
Ever make a beer of 100% munich?

I got one in a home brew trade recently. Pretty good, and very similar in color and flavor to my 100% Vienna lager SMaSH. All by itself I think the malt is a little one dimensional though.
 
Since I have yet to brew an "American" style beer, and don't know if I ever will, Munich probably won't ever be milled/mashed here. With the range of styles available to me, that are from the British Isles, I can't see going to another region (style wise) for some time (if ever). I don't [really] have any interest in brewing a lager even. For one things, I don't want to set up a chamber in order to properly lager. For another, I'm very happy brewing with ale yeast.

helibrewer said:
In looking through Brewing Classic Styles, I see that Munich is NOT used in any of the classic English styles, including stouts, pale ales, and IPA's.
That's what I'm talking about too. I don't have that book, but I do have the small books for a few of the styles I am brewing. I especially like the one on Barley Wines.
 
I tend to care more about how my beer tastes than if the ingredients are "normally" used in the style.
 
It does seem an odd sentiment to accuse others of "copping out" or "cheating" for using an ingredient because they like the flavor, and admittedly one that you have no experience with. Unless we are entering a competition or marketing a beer as a certain style, why not use whatever we want? You may prefer to limit your focus to traditional styles of one region, but most of us do not. I think that's one of the best things about this hobby.
:mug:
 
I also found it interesting that the use of Munich is being knocked by someone who has, admittedly, never used Munich.

Also, Golddiggie, I don't think it's particularly traditional for an old ale to be aged on cherry so that must be wrong, too. And I hope there's no coffee in that mocha porter.
 
Since I have yet to brew an "American" style beer, and don't know if I ever will, Munich probably won't ever be milled/mashed here.

Not sure why you'd want to limit yourself in terms of malt selection, and I'd never consider using Munich "cheating". I use it up to 20% or so (sometimes more) in a lot of my beers - American, Belgian, and German styles - because it has a great (and unique) flavor, and is very versatile. I haven't brewed any British styles, so I can't really comment on how it might add to (or detract from) those.

Everybody has their own brewing style, so I don't knock those who like to adhere to fairly strict style definitions. But for me, there's a huge palette of malts, hops, and yeast strains out there and endless combinations to arrive at delicious beers, so I don't ever restrict myself to what others think is "appropriate". To each their own.
 
chickypad said:
It does seem an odd sentiment to accuse others of "copping out" or "cheating" for using an ingredient because they like the flavor, and admittedly one that you have no experience with. Unless we are entering a competition or marketing a beer as a certain style, why not use whatever we want? You may prefer to limit your focus to traditional styles of one region, but most of us do not. I think that's one of the best things about this hobby.
:mug:

To help put this in context for you, Golddiggie recently had to excuse himself from a thread based on support for those afflicted by Hurricane Sandy after stating that he didn't see what the big deal was, all that happened to him was that his DirectTV went out. So needless to say he has issues with seeing things from other prospectives than his own.
 
And even when entering competitions, taste and the "apparent" adherence to style is what is most important. Some of my best scoring and medal-winning beers have used ingredients that wouldn't necessarily be used that often (or appropriate) for a particular style.
 
Guess I'm just jaded by the base malt I am using. I'm using good/great UK 2 row and Maris Otter for all my batches. I mash in the temperatures to give the body I want. I also use yeast that leaves a good amount of malt character/flavors in the brew.

You know I have to, don't you?!?! :D

You mean, you use UK malt in all beers? Isn't that cheating? :ban: If you were a good brewer, you wouldn't NEED to use maris otter in a scottish ale, only golden promise. :p

When you think about, Munich malt is German maris otter. I mean, it's the closest analogy I can think of.

It's just one more tool in our arsenal as brewers.

I know of some people who use carapils in every batch, including probrewers. Others call carapils a crutch. I think it's all about your ability to get to the exact results you want, whether it's using carapils or Munich malt, or maris otter.

The other thing is that without brewing different styles, you may not have an appreciation for what some malts can bring to the beer. I mean, I'll use Belgian pilsner malt in a US IPA sometimes- and it's awesome! And other times I'll use US Vienna malt in a German beer. Limiting yourself to strict rules and only brewing a couple of styles of beer is fine, if you're happy with your beers. But not brewing other styles, and not having an understanding of the malts available in the world is so limiting and maybe you're missing out on something great.
 
I also found it interesting that the use of Munich is being knocked by someone who has, admittedly, never used Munich.

Also, Golddiggie, I don't think it's particularly traditional for an old ale to be aged on cherry so that must be wrong, too. And I hope there's no coffee in that mocha porter.

I guess for all his snobbery about being a purist to English beers he forgot that his cream ale is an American beer style.
 
To help put this in context for you, Golddiggie recently had to excuse himself from a thread based on support for those afflicted by Hurricane Sandy after stating that he didn't see what the big deal was, all that happened to him was that his DirectTV went out. So needless to say he has issues with seeing things from other prospectives than his own.

When he first came on here he was telling us what his LHBS was telling him and he was told the advice was dated and inaccurate. He then told us we had no idea what we were talking about.
 
By this same logic wouldn't using all these new fancy yeast styles that bring out particular characters in your beer be just as much of a "cheat" as using a particular malt for the character it gives to the beer?

I think for a lot of people homebrewing is great because of the freedom it allows in ingredient choices and that there is no real right or wrong way of doing things.
 
ReverseApacheMaster said:
When he first came on here he was telling us what his LHBS was telling him and he was told the advice was dated and inaccurate. He then told us we had no idea what we were talking about.

I remember that! Man, the dots are really connecting now.
 
mcwilcr said:
By this same logic wouldn't using all these new fancy yeast styles that bring out particular characters in your beer be just as much of a "cheat" as using a particular malt for the character it gives to the beer?
Using yeast at all is a cheat. You are supposed to let the wild yeast inoculate your beer, and whatever you have locally is what makes your beer authentic. Anything else is cheating. Why should we get to cheat and make our beer appear to have been brewed in Belgium?
 
Since I have yet to brew an "American" style beer, and don't know if I ever will, Munich probably won't ever be milled/mashed here. With the range of styles available to me, that are from the British Isles, I can't see going to another region (style wise) for some time (if ever). I don't [really] have any interest in brewing a lager even. For one things, I don't want to set up a chamber in order to properly lager. For another, I'm very happy brewing with ale yeast.

I'll bet you get heavy starch on your dress shirts.


Im into beer and brewing for good tasting beer. If that good tasting beer is made by mashing these
Oompa-Loompa.jpg
or these
pic_156960001182301625.jpeg

I'm getting out my club and finding a way to get them through my barley crusher and into my MLT. :D

I really don't care what the style police or someone with a hand carved mash paddle that cost more than my AG set up has to say about my beers or recipes. I'm a harsher critic of my beers anyways and if it tastes great that's all that matters. Hopefully you feel the same way about your beer :mug:
 
bottlebomber said:
Using yeast at all is a cheat. You are supposed to let the wild yeast inoculate your beer, and whatever you have locally is what makes your beer authentic. Anything else is cheating. Why should we get to cheat and make our beer appear to have been brewed in Belgium?

Or styles from the British isles like OP is brewing.
 
Let's keep on topic, and leave any personal comments and remarks out of posts, ok? Remember the golden rule, and if you don't have anything of substance to add to the discussion there is no shame in not posting.
 
By this same logic wouldn't using all these new fancy yeast styles that bring out particular characters in your beer be just as much of a "cheat" as using a particular malt for the character it gives to the beer?

I think for a lot of people homebrewing is great because of the freedom it allows in ingredient choices and that there is no real right or wrong way of doing things.

That seems to be what Charlie Bamforth said in a article we discussed last weekend.
 
ReverseApacheMaster said:
That seems to be what Charlie Bamforth said in a article we discussed last weekend.

I didn't see that. One of my favorite brewing books radical brewing by Randy Mosher has a lot of discussion and examples about choosing ingredients for what they contribute, making modifications to classic styles, brewing with fruit, and herbs, etc.. Also has a lot of interesting recipes and as a whole is no where as "radical" as the title might lead you to believe.
 
Since I have yet to brew an "American" style beer, and don't know if I ever will, Munich probably won't ever be milled/mashed here. With the range of styles available to me, that are from the British Isles, I can't see going to another region (style wise) for some time (if ever). I don't [really] have any interest in brewing a lager even. For one things, I don't want to set up a chamber in order to properly lager. For another, I'm very happy brewing with ale yeast.

No disrespect, but why draw a line then taunt those not on the same side as you? The use of any malt is due to many years of experimentation then adoption as a common ingredient. There is nothing sacred or blasphemous in homebrewing. The brewers that were originating the brews that you revere in the UK would have gladly used any ingredients that would have improved what they had. The notion that what one or another does is proper or improper is antithetical to homebrewing.

I am as happy with recipes containing munich malt as you are with ale yeast.
 
Munich malt adds a nice malt backbone and I use it fairly regularly in my APAs, ambers, pale ales, etc. I also like to use Vienna malt to provide some malt flavor and toastiness. Both malts also impart some color. I generally try to include an equal percentage of crystal malt and munich/vienna malt whenever possible as I perceive that caramel malts add a little too much sweetness and munich/vienna malts help counteract that, and they give the beer some depth.

Munich malt is cheating? :confused:

I suppose it wouldn't be considered "to style" with English beers but for American and German styles it's fine.
 
chickypad said:
It does seem an odd sentiment to accuse others of "copping out" or "cheating" for using an ingredient because they like the flavor, and admittedly one that you have no experience with. Unless we are entering a competition or marketing a beer as a certain style, why not use whatever we want? You may prefer to limit your focus to traditional styles of one region, but most of us do not. I think that's one of the best things about this hobby.
:mug:

This dude is right on. U can use recipes or.....you can MAKE recipes! Beer has gotten to the point it has because people have dared to break a TYPICAL style and make a UNIQUE style, resulting in a beer that a large majority end of loving more than the typical. All because of trial and error. Best hobby to have for sure.
 
I would go even further and say that as long as we are making good beer, why not use whatever we want... even if we are entering a competition or marketing a beer as a certain style.

I suppose it would depend on what you consider to define a style. But for me, it is appearance, aroma, mouthfeel and taste. Who cares how you get there?

This is all not to mention that if 10 homebrewers brewed the same recipe, you would get 10 different beers. ALL homebrewers have different techniques and equipment - and those techniques and equipment are usually very far from traditional techniques and equipment. So it will take different ingredients for different homebrewers to arrive at a similar final product.
 
I've been noticing a trend lately with lots of recipes coming up using Munich malt. Recipes like porters, barley wines, IPA's, and others that really don't use it (normally).



Hate me if you like, but that's my take on it.

Even though the tone of your post is, IMO, elitist, argumentative, narrow minded, and uninformed, why should I hate you for your slant on things? I'm sure that after much more experimentation and experience, you may possibly come to a realization that Munich malt is a great performer for those that have a taste for malty beers. For those of that taste preference, Munich malt is a natural ingredient and in no wise should be considered a "cheat".
Cheers, and let each brew their own......
 
Back
Top