So I'm a huge German beer fan.
I love a good IPA, the odd sour, and some British styles but my true love is the malty German styles like Munich Dunkel, Maibock, Marzen, Bock, Doppelbock, etc.
Now, in all modesty, I make pretty decent beer. It's technically good meaning that there's not usually detectable flaws resulting from technique or process and rarely off flavors. When I make a German beer though, I struggle to get the incredibly refined "malty but attenuated" flavor characteristic of these styles.
I currently have a munich dunkel on tap. It's the right color, the right gravity, the right basic flavor, it's pretty tasty! But then I try it beside an imported dunkel and the malt flavor is practically non-existent.
I'm not talking about the difference between bad beer and good beer here, I'm talking about the difference between good beer and masterful beer. I frankly don't know how they retain so much malt character without making a beer that tastes sweet. Sam Adam's oktoberfest is absolutely cloying on the finish, but the initial malt flavor is about right.
So to start the discussion, I just finished reading Noonan's New Brewing Lagers book and he discusses a couple things that I think I'm going to experiment with:
1. Mashing technique. He describes mashing in around 130F and performing the Hockhurz style step mash as a way of retaining those delicate malt aromatics. He even describes mashing in with cool water and progressively heating it to the various rest temps.
I know this has been discussed in depth all over this forum, but again I'm not talking about "I use single infusion and I make good beer" because I have done that for most of my time brewing. I'm talking about making a beer that's indistinguishable (by a BJCP judge or equivalent) from Ettaler Kloster Dunkel or something similar in depth of malt without sweetness.
2. Secondary and krausening. So IMO secondary fermentation has gotten a bad rap, mostly because of John Palmer and Charlie Papazian. The original use for a secondary fermentor was not to simply clarify beer, or let it finish attenuating. According to Noonan's description the secondary fermentation was originally used in conjunction with krausening to eke out every last bit of fermentability and ensure a highly attenuated beer.
I think these two factors together play the largest role in maintaining that malty flavor.
Please do not bring up LODO techniques on this thread, that is not my intent. I minimize oxygen whenever practical and I cannot accept that this quality of beer was only developed in Germany after the invention of bottled CO2.
I love a good IPA, the odd sour, and some British styles but my true love is the malty German styles like Munich Dunkel, Maibock, Marzen, Bock, Doppelbock, etc.
Now, in all modesty, I make pretty decent beer. It's technically good meaning that there's not usually detectable flaws resulting from technique or process and rarely off flavors. When I make a German beer though, I struggle to get the incredibly refined "malty but attenuated" flavor characteristic of these styles.
I currently have a munich dunkel on tap. It's the right color, the right gravity, the right basic flavor, it's pretty tasty! But then I try it beside an imported dunkel and the malt flavor is practically non-existent.
I'm not talking about the difference between bad beer and good beer here, I'm talking about the difference between good beer and masterful beer. I frankly don't know how they retain so much malt character without making a beer that tastes sweet. Sam Adam's oktoberfest is absolutely cloying on the finish, but the initial malt flavor is about right.
So to start the discussion, I just finished reading Noonan's New Brewing Lagers book and he discusses a couple things that I think I'm going to experiment with:
1. Mashing technique. He describes mashing in around 130F and performing the Hockhurz style step mash as a way of retaining those delicate malt aromatics. He even describes mashing in with cool water and progressively heating it to the various rest temps.
I know this has been discussed in depth all over this forum, but again I'm not talking about "I use single infusion and I make good beer" because I have done that for most of my time brewing. I'm talking about making a beer that's indistinguishable (by a BJCP judge or equivalent) from Ettaler Kloster Dunkel or something similar in depth of malt without sweetness.
2. Secondary and krausening. So IMO secondary fermentation has gotten a bad rap, mostly because of John Palmer and Charlie Papazian. The original use for a secondary fermentor was not to simply clarify beer, or let it finish attenuating. According to Noonan's description the secondary fermentation was originally used in conjunction with krausening to eke out every last bit of fermentability and ensure a highly attenuated beer.
I think these two factors together play the largest role in maintaining that malty flavor.
Please do not bring up LODO techniques on this thread, that is not my intent. I minimize oxygen whenever practical and I cannot accept that this quality of beer was only developed in Germany after the invention of bottled CO2.