Kentucky Common is one of those historical American beer styles that Mike has been exploring for some time now. He has brewed one over the last several years, but in this version, he changed the recipe and fermentation approach considerably.

For this batch, he wanted to respect the traditional concept while brewing something more enjoyable for his preferences. The result was a darker, malt-forward beer featuring plenty of corn without an overwhelming cooked corn character. We tasted the beer together and discussed the recipe, fermentation problems, and improvements over Mike’s previous Kentucky Common. Here is everything you need to know about his 4th attempt.

We Learn and Do

This is the 2026 version of Mike’s Kentucky Common Beer Recipe

The Fourth Kentucky Common Recipe

Grain Bill

  • 50% Pale Malt
  • 23% Pilsner Malt
  • 23% Corn
  • 2% Crystal 40
  • 2% Blackprinz Malt

Hops

  • 2 ounces Willamette hops at 60 minutes

Yeast

  • 1 packet Fermentis SafLager S-23

Mash

  • Mash at 152°F for 75 minutes

Fermentation

  • Fermented initially between 62°F and 65°F
  • Later warmed to approximately 72°F after fermentation slowed
  • Lagered for an extended period before tasting

Original Gravity: 1.052
Final Gravity: 1.018

First Takes

Mike hoped the longer mash would encourage better fermentability, although the final gravity remained higher than expected. The fermentation stopped around 1.021 initially, so Mike gently roused the yeast and increased the fermentation temperature. Those changes only brought the beer down several additional points before fermentation appeared completely finished at 1.018. Despite the fermentation issue, the extended lagering period made a noticeable difference when we finally tasted the finished beer.

The beer poured very clear with an off-white head that remained persistent throughout much of our tasting. On the aroma, malt was clearly the dominant characteristic without much noticeable yeast character coming through. The flavor was considerably smoother than Mike’s earlier attempt at brewing a Kentucky Common beer. More importantly, I did not get the cooked corn character that stood out in some previous adjunct beers. Using 23 percent corn seemed like a good compromise between representing the style and keeping the beer enjoyable. Meanwhile, the pale malt provided additional malt character instead of relying entirely on Pilsner malt for the base. Even with only two percent Crystal 40, the finished beer had a surprisingly noticeable malt character.

Mike thought the S-23 yeast also helped support that malt character after spending considerable time lagering. One of our bigger discussions concerned why fermentation stopped considerably higher than Mike originally expected. His working theory involved pitching dry yeast directly onto the sanitizer foam remaining inside his fermentation vessel. Mike wondered whether some yeast remained trapped within that foam instead of immediately reaching the wort underneath. Recently, he has started rehydrating dry yeast before pitching, allowing the liquid yeast mixture to penetrate that foam. We do not know whether that explains the attenuation problem, but it gives us something worth testing. Even with the higher final gravity, this Kentucky Common remained balanced, smooth, and easy to drink.

Final Thoughts

This version was an improvement over our previous Kentucky Common experiments, particularly regarding the corn character. For my tastes, keeping corn around one quarter of the grain bill produced a much more enjoyable result. The combination of pale malt and Pilsner malt also provided enough character without making the beer overly heavy. Additionally, extended lagering appeared to smooth out fermentation characteristics that were unpleasant when the beer was younger.

The biggest unanswered question involves the stalled fermentation and whether yeast handling contributed to the higher final gravity. Mike has already changed his dry yeast process, so future batches should give us more information. Ultimately, this Kentucky Common respected the historical idea while still reflecting Mike’s preferences as a homebrewer. That is usually the right approach for us: understand the style, then adjust the beer to your tastes.

BREW ON!