6 Row and such

CornyKegs 728
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.
B

BeerSavesLives

Active Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
35
Reaction score
4
Location
Westfield, IN
I am new to all-grain, so having to deal with different grains rather than getting an extract that is already mixed with grains is a new concept for me. I was reading that the main differences in 2 row and 6 row is that 6 row used to have more diastatic enzymes to the point that you would benefit from it over 2 row in order to break down certain things in your mash. "Used" being the key word in that statement as I've also read that modern malts have pretty much made the two grains very similar in this aspect. The other main difference I have read about is that 6 Row has a husk that is better suited for allowing a steady sparge less prone to getting stuck.

Being that I've yet to actually brew an all-grain beer and have only done some research looking at other brewers' recipes I am left with this question I was hoping some could shed light on for me.

Is there a reason to add 6 Row to a recipe, or is 2 Row adequate enough to use solely as a better base malt of the two? Maybe to further expand on that, in what cases would you want to use 6 Row over 2, or is it ideal to have a ratio in each recipe?

Thank you for your time and help in advance!
 
I've never used any 6 row, and don't see a reason why I ever would. I'm sure there are lots of other brewers that have never used 6 row. 2 row has plenty of diastatic power to convert a 50-50 2 row + adjunct mash, and then some.

Brew on :mug:
 
A) LOTS of specialty malts are actually from 6-row, including lots of crystal malts

B) I've used 6-row in *heavily* adjuncted beers (a Cream Ale and a Malt Liquor that were both ~50% flaked maize, and even then it was maybe 50% corn, 30% pils, 20% 6 row). Otherwise 2-row will do the job.

Be careful when using English base malts. High modification plus higher kilning means they often have less enzymes than US or continental base malts.
 
doug293cz said:
I've never used any 6 row, and don't see a reason why I ever would. I'm sure there are lots of other brewers that have never used 6 row. 2 row has plenty of diastatic power to convert a 50-50 2 row + adjunct mash, and then some.

Brew on :mug:
Click to expand...

Thank you for your input. This is pretty much what I suspected from all of the reading and research on this forum I have been doing. I am currently deployed and haven't been able to brew in a little over 7 months. I have decided to get some equipment and make the jump to AG and made up some pretty basic recipes to try when I get back soon. Most had like a 60-40/70-30 2 row to 6 row ratio but after all of this I will probably just change em all to 2 row.

Qhrumphf said:
A) LOTS of specialty malts are actually from 6-row, including lots of crystal malts

B) I've used 6-row in *heavily* adjuncted beers (a Cream Ale and a Malt Liquor that were both ~50% flaked maize, and even then it was maybe 50% corn, 30% pils, 20% 6 row). Otherwise 2-row will do the job.

Be careful when using English base malts. High modification plus higher kilning means they often have less enzymes than US or continental base malts.
Click to expand...

Ah that makes a lot of sense, just different modifications and kilns. In regards to B, that is really good info that I did not get elsewhere, I appreciate the knowledge. One of the recipes I made up is an oatmeal stout that uses:MO as a base malt at 47% and I have 6 row added in there at 23%. Along with 8% flaked oats and other specialties taking up the rest of the bill to get the roast flavor. Is this along the lines of what you're talking about or would you reduce the 6 row in favor of more MO, or switch out 6 row for 2 row?
 
BeerSavesLives said:
Thank you for your input. This is pretty much what I suspected from all of the reading and research on this forum I have been doing. I am currently deployed and haven't been able to brew in a little over 7 months. I have decided to get some equipment and make the jump to AG and made up some pretty basic recipes to try when I get back soon. Most had like a 60-40/70-30 2 row to 6 row ratio but after all of this I will probably just change em all to 2 row.



Ah that makes a lot of sense, just different modifications and kilns. In regards to B, that is really good info that I did not get elsewhere, I appreciate the knowledge. One of the recipes I made up is an oatmeal stout that uses:MO as a base malt at 47% and I have 6 row added in there at 23%. Along with 8% flaked oats and other specialties taking up the rest of the bill to get the roast flavor. Is this along the lines of what you're talking about or would you reduce the 6 row in favor of more MO, or switch out 6 row for 2 row?
Click to expand...
I've never had to use 6-row alongside MO. Most specialties don't need much in the way of enzymes- the manufacture of of crystal and roasted malts already converts the starches. It's when using non-enzymatic and unmalted starchy grains (typically non-barley) that it becomes an issue. With ~8% flaked grain, using all MO and no 6 row and you should have no issues.
 
The antediluvian wisdom, is that 6 row is better for high adjunct recipes.
Some folks swear by this. Most others insist it makes no difference with modern grains.
Since you're new to AG, I'd put this issue on the back burner (pun intended) and concentrate on your system, methods and efficiencies with 2 row.
 
"Is there a reason to add 6 Row to a recipe, or is 2 Row adequate enough to use solely as a better base malt of the two?"

IMO the only reason would be flavor. Your reference to the past tense description of the difference between 2-row and 6-row malt is correct. While it used to be true years ago that 6-row had a significant edge in diastatic enzyme activity compared to 2-row that is no longer the case. The differences today are minimal. However, at least to me, 6-row has a "huskier"/"grittier" flavor compared to domestic 2-row. This is an advantage is certain beers, particularly CAP (Classic American Pilsner) where I think the 6-row adds that "little extra something" to the beer's flavor profile and 6-row was the base grain of choice in many of those historical brews. However, it does seem 6-row is harder to find today as the higher enzyme content of modern 2-row has made it superfluous in many suppliers' inventories.
 
"A) LOTS of specialty malts are actually from 6-row, including lots of crystal malts"

As far as domestic (North American) malts go that is true but European crystal/caramel malts are usually not 6-row.
 
BigEd said:
"A) LOTS of specialty malts are actually from 6-row, including lots of crystal malts"

As far as domestic (North American) malts go that is true but European crystal/caramel malts are usually not 6-row.
Click to expand...
Right, lots but certainly not all. As far as I am aware, 6-row is overwhelmingly if not exclusively grown in North America, so that only stands to reason.

It wasn't really relevant beyond curiosity anyway.
 
BigEd said:
"Is there a reason to add 6 Row to a recipe, or is 2 Row adequate enough to use solely as a better base malt of the two?"

IMO the only reason would be flavor. Your reference to the past tense description of the difference between 2-row and 6-row malt is correct. While it used to be true years ago that 6-row had a significant edge in diastatic enzyme activity compared to 2-row that is no longer the case. The differences today are minimal. However, at least to me, 6-row has a "huskier"/"grittier" flavor compared to domestic 2-row. This is an advantage is certain beers, particularly CAP (Classic American Pilsner) where I think the 6-row adds that "little extra something" to the beer's flavor profile and 6-row was the base grain of choice in many of those historical brews. However, it does seem 6-row is harder to find today as the higher enzyme content of modern 2-row has made it superfluous in many suppliers' inventories.
Click to expand...

Thank you as well for the extra knowledge. I had read in someone else's post that the flavor was a bit different. But the individual that was posting about it did seem to have an overwhelming bias that made it seen that they viewed 6 row as just an inferior version of two row. I like your take on it playing it to certain flavors. Thank you for the input.
 
BeerSavesLives said:
One of the recipes I made up is an oatmeal stout that uses:MO as a base malt at 47% and I have 6 row added in there at 23%. Along with 8% flaked oats and other specialties taking up the rest of the bill to get the roast flavor. Is this along the lines of what you're talking about or would you reduce the 6 row in favor of more MO, or switch out 6 row for 2 row?
Click to expand...

+1 to don't sweat it - these days plenty of brewers go a lifetime without using 6-row. Several decades of plant breeding (and improved agronomy) mean that it's one of those things we no longer really have to worry about that early writers obsessed over, particularly in the US.

Personally I wouldn't go crazy on the roastiness front for an oatmeal stout, if you look at the (almost) original OMS, Maclays, they used little more than pale, oat malt, invert and black. Admittedly the original recipe did have a few extra bits like linseed and liquorice, they simplified it between 1909 and 1966.
 
Qhrumphf said:
Right, lots but certainly not all. As far as I am aware, 6-row is overwhelmingly if not exclusively grown in North America, so that only stands to reason.
Click to expand...
They grow a lot of 6-row in Germany - for livestock feed. Castle Malting in Belgium makes 6-row malt too.

I've used 6-row for brewing a CAP. Haven't done a direct comparison, but my impression was that it had its own flavor - @BigEd's description as husky, gritty about describes it. I'd use it again, but it's hard to find here.
 
I like 6-row, and despite modern grains which are a huge improvement, I still feel anecdotally like it's got real conversion horsepower...
 
The craft brew movement is based on 2 row. 6 row is popular with the larger breweries using cereal cookers and lots of adjuncts due to enzyme and possibly husk benefits. 6 row also has more protein so chill haze and shelf stability could be a concern if used in high percentages.

Ive never used it but i probably should use some in a lighter beer just to see how/if any flavor evolves. Nuances......

I would stick to 2 row for now
 
Northern_Brewer said:
+1 to don't sweat it - these days plenty of brewers go a lifetime without using 6-row. Several decades of plant breeding (and improved agronomy) mean that it's one of those things we no longer really have to worry about that early writers obsessed over, particularly in the US.

Personally I wouldn't go crazy on the roastiness front for an oatmeal stout, if you look at the (almost) original OMS, Maclays, they used little more than pale, oat malt, invert and black. Admittedly the original recipe did have a few extra bits like linseed and liquorice, they simplified it between 1909 and 1966.
Click to expand...

The recipe I have written up has about 5% chocolate and just over 2% roasted barley. Too much? I know what flavors they're supposed to add from readings but being new to AG I'm not entirely sure what going crazy would be considered. I also don't know if this amount of contribution would actually add much flavor or just change the color. Any advice on this would be a nice addition to the knowledge I've already gained from this thread.

bracconiere said:
just as a light hearted wise crack...i saw another thread @sixhotdogneck started about using the term 'modern malt'... and i bet he'd be upset with how often your using the term....lol

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/modern-malts-what-changed.659987/

and before i started malting 6-row feed barley...i never touched 6-row, and i did some cost saving cracked corn recipes with no problems...
Click to expand...

Woah now, I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, I'm just quoting the books I've been reading haha I am not, nor do I claim to be, an expert on the subject of grains. I will, however, adjust my vocabulary for future conversations lol
 
Last edited:
I only use grains that have been stored in LED silos.....:D:D
Ya gotta go modern.....

zztest33.jpg
 
There is 6 row at morebeer. I use it sometimes making CAPs and other adjuncted concoctions I make up. Often will match corn in grist w 6 row, by weight(10-20% each), with the balance 2 row or pilsner. Been meaning to try some flaked rice I bought on a whim, so I'll use 6 row I have with that. Just another ingredient to experiment with, to keep amused.

https://www.morebeer.com/products/rahr-6row-malt.html
 
20% flaked corn or flaked rice (or a combination of the two totaling to 20% of the grist by weight) should be enough to solve the haze problem.
 
SEndorf said:
No mice in my brewery, but if I were a cat I'd want to live in a grain warehouse...
It all gets boiled in the end.
Click to expand...

Actually, german brewers used to have cats in the brewery just for the purpose of limiting problems with mice/rats. The resulting problem was the cats loved to **** in the grain then, but at least they didn't eat it. Heard this from Kai Troester, who read it in old german brewing publications.

BeerSavesLives said:
Is there a reason to add 6 Row to a recipe, or is 2 Row adequate enough to use solely as a better base malt of the two?
Click to expand...

I've never used 6-row, but I doubt there is any good reason to use it. A long time ago, 6-row produced a much smaller kernel (less "plump"), which made it less desirable for brewing. But the modern grain is nearly the same size as 2-row. Still, it's mainly used as animal feed. One advantage of 6-row is it has higher diastatic/enzymatic power, the ability to convert starches to fermentable sugars during the mash. So if you've got a bunch of grains that have no diastatic power (e.g., rice, all crystal malts, dark malts) then 6-row would be useful. This is why, I think, that Bud et.al. used it in their light lagers.

upload_2018-12-22_9-43-57.png
 
Last edited:
passedpawn said:
A long time ago, 6-row produced a much smaller kernel (less "plump"), which made it less desirable for brewing. ... This is why, I think, that Bud et.al. used it in their light lagers.
Click to expand...

The real issue is that as your photo sort of shows, the way the grains are arranged in a 6-row ear means that 1/3 of them are significantly smaller than the others, which makes them a bit of a nightmare to malt/mill consistently, particularly when making speciality malts. 2 row ears are less cramped, so the grains are more consistent in size.

From what I can tell, US brewers started using 6 row because that was simply what was being grown locally, then they came to appreciate the extra diastatic power that allowed them to use rice/maize.
 
Northern_Brewer said:
From what I can tell, US brewers started using 6 row because that was simply what was being grown locally, then they came to appreciate the extra diastatic power that allowed them to use rice/maize.
Click to expand...

The U.S. only had 6-Row to work with early on, and it would not very consistently yield a sparkling clear light colored beer or ale until the discovery was eventually made to cut it with corn or rice. Though the cost situation may be quite different today, these adjuncts were originally used out of necessity, and not as a cost saving measure.
 
passedpawn said:
Actually, german brewers used to have cats in the brewery just for the purpose of limiting problems with mice/rats. The resulting problem was the cats loved to **** in the grain then, but at least they didn't eat it. Heard this from Kai Troester, who read it in old german brewing publications.
Click to expand...
I grew up on my grandpa's farm in Germany. Can't speak for brewers, but I can confirm that cats indeed mistake piles of grain for litter boxes.
 
I believe someone stated this earlier but if you’re new to all-grain brewing, I would focus more on learning the process and nailing your efficiency. Make some tried and true recipes until you understand how to build a grain bill based on your personal preferences. That way when you do try something new you will know for sure if it was/wasn’t an improvement and not dumb luck or a bad run
 
Dgallo said:
I believe someone stated this earlier but if you’re new to all-grain brewing, I would focus more on learning the process and nailing your efficiency. Make some tried and true recipes until you understand how to build a grain bill based on your personal preferences. That way when you do try something new you will know for sure if it was/wasn’t an improvement and not dumb luck or a bad run
Click to expand...

I do appreciate the reasoning in making a recipe that has been shown to result in a great beer but I have always been a forge your own path kind of guy. Never have I brewed a beer following a designed recipe. I have always researched recipes from the same style and then made my own recipes that reflect the same running themes and make sure to keep them in style if that's what I'm shooting for. I have yet to make a beer I can't drink. I feel like I've read enough brewing material to at least get a basic understanding of what each grain type is doing and how each impacts the beer in it's own light. So while I appreciate the suggestion, my question is would I really benefit more from trying an already formulated recipe and eventually tweaking it rather than started from my own and making adjustments on that? I understand the part about honing in on your efficiency but from all the things that I have read, people have brought the worst beer back from some big mistakes, so even if I do mess up at some point in the process (which I undoubtedly will) will it really be such a big deal to make my own mistake rather than someone elses? I just find it hard to spend money making copies when I started this hobby with the intent of creating something of my own.

But if there are some serious hurdles to jump in the difficulty gap from extract to all-grain, that would be enough to sway me to at least brew some settled recipes first. From what I've read and seen though, there isn't anything really different from extract brewing aside from letting grains steep in 145ish-160ish degree fahrneheit water for 60-90ish mintutes. Of course this is an oversimplification of the process but I will add all of the bells and whistles after I get a few batches down.
 
I went from extract and seeping grains doing half volume boils and then topping off to all grain. All grain is certainly more involved and more difficult than that. The entire mash/sparge will be new. Your hurdles would be not hitting your temps in mash and sparge. Your mash ph being incorrect. Water volumes being off. Getting a stuck mash or sparge. All fixable but all will impact your efficiency. Don’t get me wrong, I totally understand wanting to do your own thing and experiment, which you will do continuously throughout this hobby, but there will be pitfalls during your first few all-gain that effect your efficiency. Also since you haven’t worked with 2-row as a basemalt you will not know if 6-row aided your beer in anyway.
 

Similar threads

R
2 Row Malt
Replies
8
Views
1K
shavy
shavy
S
Bought a different two row and now, my numbers aren't right.
Replies
10
Views
1K
slayer021175666
S
W
High gravity in Robobrew
Replies
4
Views
723
williamneal
W
S
Not hitting numbers with new base malt.
Replies
24
Views
765
balrog
balrog
yard_bird
New Challenge for Brewing: Stouts
Replies
13
Views
681
DuncB
D

Latest posts

Back
Top