What does 2 row mean when you hear the term 2 row malt?

[MrEcted1]

I've always wondered this...

What does 2 row mean? You hear of 2 row malt and 6 row malt... what's the difference?

 

[sonvolt]

These terms refer to the number of grains on the head of the plant. In other words, there are 2 rows of barley "kernels" in 2 row malt . . . likewise 6 row has 6 rows of kernels.

I think that 6-row barley is an attempt to get higher yield per acre of plant; however, 2-row barley is superior in quality since the kernel itself has more room to grow and get plump (I may be way off base, here . . . ) and develop more starch that is able to convert to sugar. Additionally, kernels from 2-Row Barley plants are more uniform in size than those from 6-Row plants - thus, they yield a better crush than 6-Row kernels . . . i.e. better efficiency.

2-Row

6-Row

 

[MrEcted1]

perfect, thanks!

 

[spbyrd]

You're exactly correct. I'm studying botany in college, and while 6 row grain does yield more, each kernel (caryopsis, as we call it) has less sugar inside of it, so in brewing, lower numbers of rows = more fermentable sugars and is much superior.

 

[trimixdiver1]

6 row has greater diastatic power than most grains including 2 row. 6 row is mostly used to convert adjunct grains like corn and rice, hence its what Bud and other "breweries" use so then can make "beer" cheaply. Also shiners use it to convert their corn mashes.

 

[dkevinb]

6 row has greater diastatic power than most grains including 2 row. 6 row is mostly used to convert adjunct grains like corn and rice, hence its what Bud and other "breweries" use so then can make "beer" cheaply. Also shiners use it to convert their corn mashes.

The idea that using corn and other adjuncts to brew beer in the U.S. is a recent invention in order to make beer cheaper is a myth. Brewers have been using corn and other non-barley fermentables since Europeans first landed in North America. For one thing, barley doesn't grow well in New England, and they certainly didn't have time to plant a crop, let it grow, harvest it, and malt it before they started making beer. Importing barley from Europe was prohibitively expensive.

When the breweries started back up after Prohibition they didn't suddenly decide to make cheap beer using corn. They were just using the same recipes they'd been using all along. While you and I might not care for Bud, using corn and rice in beer is not some evil corporate idea they invented.

 

[unionrdr]

In light of that, I'd question how much they used then versus now? Beers in the 50's, for example, had better flavor & color than they do now.

 

[Calichusetts]

Beers in the 50's, for example, had better flavor & color than they do now.

 

[dkevinb]

In light of that, I'd question how much they used then versus now? Beers in the 50's, for example, had better flavor & color than they do now.

I've never tasted '50's beer, but I'll take your word for it. I've heard some interesting theories on this topic, though. One is that everything became more bland in the late '50's/early '60's with the advent of frozen TV dinners and canned and boxed meals, compared to the days when the wife/mother stayed home and cooked everything from scratch. More people started smoking cigarettes with filters because they were "smoother". Then in the '70's you had the "light beer is healthier" movement. It would be interesting to brew a Budweiser from the recipes they were using in every decade from the 1800's until today to see what the differences were. While I'm sure AB keeps a microscope trained on the bottom line, I'm sure they also respond to what their customers want, which ties closely to the bottom line.

 

[cernst151]

6 row has greater diastatic power than most grains including 2 row. 6 row is mostly used to convert adjunct grains like corn and rice, hence its what Bud and other "breweries" use so then can make "beer" cheaply. Also shiners use it to convert their corn mashes.

I'm curious then, would there be any advantage to using a small percentage of 6-row in a regular recipe mash? Would that help you get better conversion from your 2-row and your specialty grains or is it only useful on corn and rice for some reason?

 

[trimixdiver1]

The idea that using corn and other adjuncts to brew beer in the U.S. is a recent invention in order to make beer cheaper is a myth. Brewers have been using corn and other non-barley fermentables since Europeans first landed in North America. For one thing, barley doesn't grow well in New England, and they certainly didn't have time to plant a crop, let it grow, harvest it, and malt it before they started making beer. Importing barley from Europe was prohibitively expensive.

When the breweries started back up after Prohibition they didn't suddenly decide to make cheap beer using corn. They were just using the same recipes they'd been using all along. While you and I might not care for Bud, using corn and rice in beer is not some evil corporate idea they invented.

Then I guess the term Pre Prohibition beer needs to be stricken from history, because the beer made Pre Prohibition is the same swill that Bud and Miller make.

 

[trimixdiver1]

I'm curious then, would there be any advantage to using a small percentage of 6-row in a regular recipe mash? Would that help you get better conversion from your 2-row and your specialty grains or is it only useful on corn and rice for some reason?

Most malted grains can convert themselves, if you had some other adjuncts then add some 6 row would help (IE corn, rice, pumpkin, potato any starch)

 

[Yooper]

I'm curious then, would there be any advantage to using a small percentage of 6-row in a regular recipe mash? Would that help you get better conversion from your 2-row and your specialty grains or is it only useful on corn and rice for some reason?

Base malt made out of two-row has plenty of excess diastatic power to convert any regular mash items, and then some.

You need about 35 degrees lintner in the mash to convert. US two-row has about 140, while six row has up to 160. So, you can see that with plain two-row, you should have plenty of diastase enzymes for almost all applications.

Sometimes, especially in a cream ale, 6-row may be preferred. Not just because of its excess diastatic power, but it has a "grainy" flavor that goes well in a cream ale.

I just wanted to point out that this thread ended over 8 years ago, and was bumped for no reason at all but still a useful conversation occurred. Next time, we should start a new thread and not bump one that is over 8 years old.

 

[unionrdr]

I've never tasted '50's beer, but I'll take your word for it. I've heard some interesting theories on this topic, though. One is that everything became more bland in the late '50's/early '60's with the advent of frozen TV dinners and canned and boxed meals, compared to the days when the wife/mother stayed home and cooked everything from scratch. More people started smoking cigarettes with filters because they were "smoother". Then in the '70's you had the "light beer is healthier" movement. It would be interesting to brew a Budweiser from the recipes they were using in every decade from the 1800's until today to see what the differences were. While I'm sure AB keeps a microscope trained on the bottom line, I'm sure they also respond to what their customers want, which ties closely to the bottom line.

True enough with prepared foods, cigs & such. But beer was definitely better by a bit compared to how much lighter they are now. I tried to get the recipe for Stroh's Bock but they never answered back?! Recipes for Bud, Stroh's, Blatz, POC, & a few others from back then would be great to try. My experiments with what I call hybrid lagers was an attempt to figure them out. So far, with 2 or 3 versions, I've gotten light & dark versions. The light one taste Euro or German to me. But not like the old school American ones. Gotta try some Bavarian malts next time maybe? The malt, hop & yeast balances were great in my opinion at that time.

 

[dkevinb]

Then I guess the term Pre Prohibition beer needs to be stricken from history, because the beer made Pre Prohibition is the same swill that Bud and Miller make.

Not at all. Like unionrdr says, beer from the 1950's was very different from what it is today. My point is that the beer brewed the year before Prohibition and the beer brewed the year after Prohibition was pretty much identical. But beer recipes evolve all the time. The World Wars had a huge impact on brewing around the world, mainly because the ingredients were rationed or not available. But using corn and rice isn't a new idea that AB suddenly came up with to cheat their customers. American consumer tastes have changed dramatically over time. We used to like heavier English style ales. Then the Germans came over and started brewing lagers. They became very popular, so all breweries started making lighter colored and flavored beers. Adding corn and rice is a good way to achieve that light, dry style. Believe me, no matter how cheap it is to make AB wouldn't make it if their customers didn't want it.

While the craft/homebrewing movement is growing, we're still a tiny percentage of beer drinkers. Everyone likes pizza, not everyone likes anchovies, capers and goat cheese on their pizza. Try to find an anchovy, caper and goat cheese pizza in the frozen food section at your grocery store. The frozen pizza makers aren't making pepperoni pizzas because they're cheaper than anchovy pizzas, believe me.

 

[smcinco]

The idea that using corn and other adjuncts to brew beer in the U.S. is a recent invention in order to make beer cheaper is a myth. Brewers have been using corn and other non-barley fermentables since Europeans first landed in North America. For one thing, barley doesn't grow well in New England, and they certainly didn't have time to plant a crop, let it grow, harvest it, and malt it before they started making beer. Importing barley from Europe was prohibitively expensive.

When the breweries started back up after Prohibition they didn't suddenly decide to make cheap beer using corn. They were just using the same recipes they'd been using all along. While you and I might not care for Bud, using corn and rice in beer is not some evil corporate idea they invented.

There are some contradictions here. This would also imply that rice grows better than barley in NE, which it certainly does not.

 

[dkevinb]

There are some contradictions here. This would also imply that rice grows better than barley in NE, which it certainly does not.

I doubt the colonists were using rice in their beer. They certainly used corn, pumpkin, whatever they could find that would ferment.

From what I've read of the history of it AB started using rice to stand out from Miller and Coors. Their customers liked it, as evidenced by the fact that AB sells a lot more beer than Miller-Coors. This "lighter beer sells better" thing has been going on since the 1800's.

 

[fimpster]

...using corn and rice isn't a new idea that AB suddenly came up with to cheat their customers. American consumer tastes have changed dramatically over time. We used to like heavier English style ales. Then the Germans came over and started brewing lagers. They became very popular, so all breweries started making lighter colored and flavored beers. Adding corn and rice is a good way to achieve that light, dry style. Believe me, no matter how cheap it is to make AB wouldn't make it if their customers didn't want it.

It should be noted that the massive BMC Marketing Machine largely drives what customers want.

 

[unionrdr]

Yeah, they do have a way of driving customer demand. I just wish I know then what I now know about brewing to better describe what might've been used to brew beers back then. The only way I've ever been able to describe it is "that real beer flavor". I remember the tastes of them, but can't describe them to anyone else beyond that other than color.

 

[Sparge]

Yeah, they do have a way of driving customer demand. I just wish I know then what I now know about brewing to better describe what might've been used to brew beers back then. The only way I've ever been able to describe it is "that real beer flavor". I remember the tastes of them, but can't describe them to anyone else beyond that other than color.

Or, could it be that your palate has changed over the years, so you think you remember that beer tasted much different in the 50's?

 

[smeltz]

I can't even recall the nuances of the first sip of a Belgian that I enjoyed over the weekend. That being said, I also did not enjoy a decades worth of Belgians and forget its overall quality.

 

[smcinco]

I doubt the colonists were using rice in their beer. They certainly used corn, pumpkin, whatever they could find that would ferment.

From what I've read of the history of it AB started using rice to stand out from Miller and Coors. Their customers liked it, as evidenced by the fact that AB sells a lot more beer than Miller-Coors. This "lighter beer sells better" thing has been going on since the 1800's.

Keep in mind this is the same company that created the Busch brand only to circumvent stadium naming rights anti-alcohol rules. Of course, Product is one of the four Ps in marketing, but so is Promotion.

Having worked in media and also having friends who worked in marketing for the big breweries back in the day (not to mention there were Busch family alumni photos plastered all over my b school), it would be difficult to not see it as a cynical business. Love how they advertise their use of premium 6-row malt, if that isn't a contradiction...

 

[GrogNerd]

page from my copy of Essentials of Beer Style by Fred Eckhardt, publish 1989

AB dropped the IBUs in Bud around the time of New Coke. so unionrdr's point does have some merit. the macro brews have changed, even within my own lifetime. not just since the 50s

I have also talked to my aunts and uncles about what beer my Grandfather drank and they have said when they were younger, in the 50s, he drank Buckeye Ale. but I remember him drinking Buckeye Beer, which was a premium American lager. (Buckeye eventually became Meisterbrau, then a Light version was introduced, which became Miller Lite)

 

[MrFeltimo]

When 2-row barley grows it has two rows of grain, when 6 row barley grows it has six rows of grain....
And what everyone else has said.

 

[ericbw]

A couple of thoughts.

IBUs can't be the only value that determines if beer was "better" at a certain time.

Seriously, raise your hand if you were a serious beer drinker with a refined palate 50.years.ago. 50.

I remember beer tasting different in the 70s. I think it was maltier and had a more bold flavor. This isn't really a fair comparison, because I was a kid, so EVERYthing was bolder to my tastes then. Coffee was wickedly bitter. Biting a lemon would kill me. Chili was too spicy. Candy was sweeter. Beer was more beery.

It's also really pointless to compare "old school" beers from the 50s (or pre-prohibition, which you never drank anyway, but that's a digression...) with Bud Light. Light beer is different than the lightest Pilsner. Try Budweiser or Coors original (Banquet? Whatever it's called.) That's a more fair comparison.

 

[ericbw]

There are some contradictions here. This would also imply that rice grows better than barley in NE, which it certainly does not.

But the fact remains that those adjuncts allowed ale brewers to produce a product that competed with the Midwest lagers (lighter, crisper than British styled ales that were brewed in the NE). I don't know that adjuncts are that much cheaper, they just make it easier to make the beer. A more fermentable wort probably reduces lagering times, which would be especially important when refrigeration was young.

 

[beergolf]

Beers in the 50's, for example, had better flavor & color than they do now.
__________________

I don't understand how you can say that. You were born in the 50's so you have no idea what the beers back then tasted like.

 

[Rjppunk]

I live in vermont, I started brewing there, started drinking there, ect... We have the most microbreweries per capita and a lot of them lead the charts over at beer advocate. Don't tell me beer tasted better 60 years ago

 

[ericbw]

I live in vermont, I started brewing there, started drinking there, ect... We have the most microbreweries per capita and a lot of them lead the charts over at beer advocate. Don't tell me beer tasted better 60 years ago

The discussion is really about if cheap lagers tasted better then. if the typical can of "beer" was better. It's not fair to compare modern microbreweries ales to mass produced light lagers.

 

[Rjppunk]

Not really, the point was "beer was better in the 50's" which is a huge generalization. If you're ignoring the overall variety and selection of beers we have today for low to moderate prices then maybe it was better.