Pils vs 2-row

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.

hbhudy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
453
Reaction score
29
Location
Cincinnati, OH
I have always used 2-row for my base malts.. I wanted to know what the difference would be if I used pils instead of 2-row. I know color would/should be lighter, but what about malt character or sweetness??

Thanks for the feedback
 
I did this for the first time with a simple blonde ale, where I went about 60% Belgian Pils, 40% US 2-row. I definitely got more of a "grainy" taste out of the finished product, and that added a depth that I'd had trouble getting in my lighter 2-row beers that I'd made. I've stared using it on a more regular basis.

I'd say at the very least to give it a try.
 
I completely agree with the previous poster. I just did the same thing with a wheat beer and it turned out better with pils vs 2row. Just mash a little longer than with 2row. It is worth a try.
 
StMarcos said:
I thought pils was 2-row...?

When people say 2-Row, it's usually shorthand for "American 2-Row Pale Malt". For whatever reason, when the word got shortened it lost the contrastive bit. So Pilsner malt is indeed the 2-Row strain, but it's not what is generally meant when people say 2-Row.
 
I recently brewed 2 test batches to experiment with this exact subject. A 2-row American pale/Cascade SMaSH and a Pilsner/Cascade SMaSH, identical brews except for the malt (same hop schedule, yeast, fermented side by side at the same temp, bottled at the same time, etc.).

Both batches have been carbing in the bottles for almost 3 weeks, the taste testing/comparison is planned for this weekend. I will post back when I have some input, stay tuned......
 
Very curious about the results. Og came in the same for each?

In regards to the nomenclature, is there anything different about pils malt and '2-row' other than lovibond and or country of production? I've seen some malts (great western?) that have something called 2-row and a different called pale. IIRC the 2-row was lower L.
 
Very curious about the results. Og came in the same for each?

In regards to the nomenclature, is there anything different about pils malt and '2-row' other than lovibond and or country of production? I've seen some malts (great western?) that have something called 2-row and a different called pale. IIRC the 2-row was lower L.

There's a British malt, sometimes called English Pale Ale, that tends to be a little darker and a little breadier. For better or worse, you just need to get to know your maltster. What one company calls Munich might be more like what another company calls Dark Vienna, and the differences between even base malts can vary considerably both regionally and by maltster.
 
Very curious about the results. Og came in the same for each?

In regards to the nomenclature, is there anything different about pils malt and '2-row' other than lovibond and or country of production? I've seen some malts (great western?) that have something called 2-row and a different called pale. IIRC the 2-row was lower L.

Pils, "2-row" and Pale Ale malts are produced differently. In terms of color, they go from light to dark, respectively (though "dark" is relative in this sense). They are all usually made from 2-row barley varieties.

Pils is usually undermodified, compared to "2-row" and Pale Ale malts. Pils malts can usually benefit from step or decoction mashing in ways which are not suitable for the others.

The mashing process as much as the malting process dictates the amount of apparent extract available in the malt. "2-row" and Pale Ale malts are malted to provide good results with a single-infusion mash.

"2-row" malt is an excellent base malt because it is so easy to use and flavor-neutral, compared to the others. Pils is lighter, but harder to mash properly. Pale Ale malt is higher-kilned, so it is not suitable for extremely light-colored beers; the higher kilning also provides different flavors not normally associated with very pale beers.

They are all base malts, in that a grist can contain 100% of each without difficulty. They are all designed to do different things, however, and have different effects, so they are not interchangeable.

Cheers,

Bob
 
I've been using a pilsner malt from a company called Durst... it's German I'm pretty sure. I've been doing a single infusion mash at 66.6C, 100ppmCa, with at mash pH at 5.3 10 minutes into the mash. I didn't know it was undermodified. I was under the impression that all malts were fully modified these days, unless specifically noted. Do you think my beer has been suffering because I have not dealt with the modification issue?
 
I've been using a pilsner malt from a company called Durst... it's German I'm pretty sure. I've been doing a single infusion mash at 66.6C, 100ppmCa, with at mash pH at 5.3 10 minutes into the mash. I didn't know it was undermodified. I was under the impression that all malts were fully modified these days, unless specifically noted. Do you think my beer has been suffering because I have not dealt with the modification issue?

No.

Except for some specially processed pilsner malts (like Weyermann Bohemian Pilsner or Weyerman Bohemian Floor) contemporary pilsner malts are enough "well-modified" to be mashed without protein rest. Unless the malt is specifically processed for decoction mashing, there's no special treatment needed and the malt can be mashed in one temperature step/infusion.

All large European maltsters (GlobalMalt, MaltEurop, Soufflet, DMG) produce base pilsner malt that is well suited for single temperature mashing.
 
Truth. You can mash the vast majority of Pils malts in a single infusion.

That does not mean that those Pils malts are as highly modified as 2-row base and pale ale malts. Look at these typical malt-analysis values by Muntons. The important number is the soluble nitrogen ratio; the higher the number, the greater the degree of modification.

Looking at Briess's analyses will tell you the same thing, except with different numbers. Keep your eye on S/T and alpha amylase.

So, St Marcos, your beers have not been suffering. Will they benefit from a mashing schedule other than single-infusion? That depends on factors like foam, turbidity and whether you care about them.

Cheers,

Bob
 
So, a complete newbie question here. If I have a recipe which calls for pils extract how much of a difference will it make to use normal light extract? Say for a tripel or the likes.

How big of a difference do the differences between base malts make for a beginner?
 
For a tripel you really should use pils extract/malt from a continental source, the grain character from north american two-row is fairly lame by itself. There's a certain grape-ness that german pils has but AFAIK that's the only common pils extract on the market. If you were doing a beer with plenty of kilned or crystal malt the differences would become negligible.
 
I believe for extract you can just use it as the light. But if you use grain you have to be sure to do a 90 min. boil. I use the pils DME for honey beer sometimes to make it lighter in color. Use cascade hops . The guys love it.
 
Going a liiittle bit off topic here, but still relevant I feel. So say I wanted to brew a 3 gallon tripel batch. Could I get away, flavor wise, with doing a partial mash of say 5-6 pounds of german pils and adding extract for the rest? The pils will then be a good 50% of the fermentables.
 
Last spring I made two 3 gallon test batches of beer comparing Briess 2-row Weyermanns Pilsner. The recipe was 85% base malt and 15% light wheat. I used Kölsch yeast in both. I can't remember the hopping profile off the top of my head, but it was pretty subdued. I wanted the difference, if any, between the base malts to show. Both batches had an OG of 1.054 and FG of 1.014.

Both beers were light in color, but there was a difference. I could pick them out by the color even when they weren't side by side. The Pilsner was light like straw.The Briess 2-row had a hint of amber. My guess is that any added amount of specialty malt that was 3 SRM or above would quickly negate the difference.

I conducted an informal taste test with 5 people who drank beer but were not experts by any means. They couldn't explain the difference between home brew and BMC. Two said they liked the 2-row better. Three said they preferred the Pilsner base beer. Both were really good beers, and they disappeared in short order.

Personally I thought the American 2-row had more flavor while the Pilsner had better color. I like really light straw color, perhaps because I never could make ultra light colored beers when I brewed with extract. I haven't done a taste test but I'm of the impression that if I added a tiny amount -- say 5% or less -- of Munich to the Pils it would taste just like the 2-row.

My very unscientific taste test was a 3-3 tie. I came away from this thinking that there is a difference between 2-row and Pilsner -- in terms of both color and flavor -- but it isn't a big difference. I still use Pilsner for base malt most of the time. Only because I have a lot of it. It's easier to darken beer than it is to make it lighter. OTOH, Briess 2-row is less expensive.
 
I recently brewed 2 test batches to experiment with this exact subject. A 2-row American pale/Cascade SMaSH and a Pilsner/Cascade SMaSH, identical brews except for the malt (same hop schedule, yeast, fermented side by side at the same temp, bottled at the same time, etc.).

Both batches have been carbing in the bottles for almost 3 weeks, the taste testing/comparison is planned for this weekend. I will post back when I have some input, stay tuned......

Tuned in.
 
Going a liiittle bit off topic here, but still relevant I feel. So say I wanted to brew a 3 gallon tripel batch. Could I get away, flavor wise, with doing a partial mash of say 5-6 pounds of german pils and adding extract for the rest? The pils will then be a good 50% of the fermentables.

It's hard to get good, fresh, Continental Pils extract in the US. Weyermann make a lovely extract, but it's really hard to find, especially fresh. Briess's Pils extract doesn't hold a candle to it, and Muntons Extra-Light is pants compared to either.

So your partial-mash idea is a very good one. I recommend Weyermann Pils malt for your mash. Mash as much pils malt only as you can; a single infusion will work fine.

Remember that Tripel has a relatively high proportion of simple sugar as part of the grist, 20% or more, so account for that in your recipe. If you're going to mash Euro-pils, use inexpensive Briess Pilsen DME if you need to supplement the malt part of the grist.

Do not use specialty grains! Tripel is SIMPLE: Pils malt, sugar, water, hops, yeast.

Cheers,

Bob
 
Williams brewing has real German pilsner extract and it's fresh. The also have Belgian pale.
http://www.williamsbrewing.com/GERMAN-PILS-EXTRACT-8-LBS-P1330C99.aspx

Many seem to prefer Best maltz over Weyermann pils. I haven't noticed much differnce. Castle is my favorite. It seems to have more flavor but I also think it can benefit from a protein rest. Best and Weyemann don't seem to need one.
 
Results of my Cascade SMaSH experiment.

The recipe:

2.5 gallon batch
4 lbs grain (pilsner or 2 row)
.5 oz cascade (5.4aa) at 60 min
.5 oz cascade (5.4aa) at 5 min
BIAB 2 step (1.5 gallon mash @ 151 for 60 min in pot #1, transfer bag to 3 gallon sparge/mashout @ 168 for 10 min in pot #2, combine runnings for 4.5 pre-boil volume)
90 minute boil (for both batches)
1 pack Notty in each batch


The details:

Pilsner batch OG: 1.045
Pilsner batch FG: 1.009

2Row batch OG: 1.041
2Row batch FG: 1.007


My findings:

- Neither had a very good head thickness or retention (being a SMaSH I didn't add my usual dose of wheat)
- The Pilsner had a bit more ppg as evidenced by the OG's
- Color and clarity after 3 weeks in the bottle were identical
- The Pilsner has a bit of a toffee/maple smell to it, while the 2Row has a very clean smell
- The Pilsner tastes a tiny bit bready while the 2row is a bit more grainy
- The hops have a stronger presence in the 2row (although neither was very hoppy)


My conclusion:

The above finding notes were only perceptible when doing a side-by-side taste comparison. If I had drank one and then opened and followed it with the other, I would be hard pressed to tell if they were two different beers or not. So, either my palate sucks or these two malts that I used were very close to taste in the final product. I mention this because both malts were CMC (Canadian Malting Company) products. Perhaps German or Bavarian Pilsner would yield a much more definitive taste difference.

Anyway, it was a fun experiment (anytime an "experiment" involves making beer it's OK by me) and there are many more to go: 2row vs Vienna, Munich, MO, etc.

Pic below, Pilsner on the left:

6190020063_db50d66870.jpg
 
Back
Top