Thoughts on decoction

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.

DrunkenGeezer

New Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Fairfax
With modern well converted malts, it is often said, that decoction is not necessary. But many feel it adds body and maltyness. I have messed with it and found it more difficult to control my mash temp than simple infusions.
I have an idea I wonder if anyone else has tried: Instead of doughing in the full mash and pulling out the decocted portion I want to do a separate mash with the decocted portion (say 1/3 of total grains) and do a single step infusion mash with a shortish (30-45 min) sacc rest, and then bring that to a boil for say 20 min. Then...add cold water, in the proper portion for the rest of the grain and add the remaining grains, then adjust temperature to sugar rest for the whole amount.
I know this is not really a decoction. But I think it might give the same desired character to the brew and increase efficiency.
Thoughts?
 
I tend to use decoctions for old/ancient recipes. It makes me feel like an oldtime brewmaster :)

I will say that although it may not be needed, there are obvious changes that occur which make me feel good about using it.

I think it was a simple way for people using limited fuel sources to get their mash from step to step. I

When you remove some wet mash from the MT and start cooking it, the smell and color change. The smell becomes much maltier and the color much darker. That alone I believe adds the malty flavor component.

That being said, I've never done any Pilsner or Oketoberfest without at least a double decoction, so haven't really compared in an AB test.

I say do it. It will give you an appreciation for the subtleties that the oldtime brewmasters dealt with.

BannonB
 
@ Denny. I figured someone must have done that b4. Too obvious. Does it have a name?
I was thinking too about calculating the temp of the water added to the boiled mash to end up at the sugar rest temp without adjustment but my head exploded.
All the online calculators I can find are for infusion mashes.
Thanks!
 
@ Denny. I figured someone must have done that b4. Too obvious. Does it have a name?
I was thinking too about calculating the temp of the water added to the boiled mash to end up at the sugar rest temp without adjustment but my head exploded.
All the online calculators I can find are for infusion mashes.
Thanks!

I don't know of any real name for it. I've never found a decoction calculator that was accurate for me. I just pull a large decoction and add it until I hit my rest temp. Then I cool any that's left down to the mash temp and add it.
 
@ Denny. I figured someone must have done that b4. Too obvious. Does it have a name?
I was thinking too about calculating the temp of the water added to the boiled mash to end up at the sugar rest temp without adjustment but my head exploded.
All the online calculators I can find are for infusion mashes.
Thanks!

I don't bother calculating, even with traditional decoction. I pull out a good approximate percent of thick mash. Heat to the rests, boil, then add back in scoops. When I'm adding back, I pour in about half, give a good stir, check temp, then add and stir more as needed. If I hit the next rest before its all added back, just leave it out. When the extra bit cools to mash temp, add it back. Repeat as necessary to next rest.

nothing says you must pull an exact quantity to hit temps. Calculators are good, but pull a bit extra to be safe. If you follow a rigid formula, you'll get frustrated. Go slow, pull more, and it's a fun process, just don't over think it.
 
Check out Melanoidin malt. There's a pro brewer in my club that swears by it, especially in beers with lager yeast (Oktoberfest/Vienna Lagers/Alts, especially). Adding about 5% Melanoidin malt to any given mash is supposed to have a similar net result as a decoction mash without all of the extra effort and time.

No brainer to me!
 
Did you actually read the guy's test? He used completely different recipes, so I'm not sure he can conclusively say that it was the melanoidin malt or the decoction mash that caused the differences in the final beers. This is anecdotal at best.

Anyway, even if the Melanoidin malt gets you 50% of the way there, I wouldn't dismiss it. There are certainly plenty of circumstances where you don't want to spend an extra hour+ doing decoctions if you don't have to.
 
Did you actually read the guy's test? He used completely different recipes, so I'm not sure he can conclusively say that it was the melanoidin malt or the decoction mash that caused the differences in the final beers. This is anecdotal at best.

Anyway, even if the Melanoidin malt gets you 50% of the way there, I wouldn't dismiss it. There are certainly plenty of circumstances where you don't want to spend an extra hour+ doing decoctions if you don't have to.

Of course, in your example, you have to assume that decoction actually makes a difference in flavor. I can't say that it definitely does.

BTW, I not only read the experiment, I tasted the beers.
 
I'm not saying the Melanoidin malt is a 1 to 1 replacement for a decoction mash, just a viable partial alternative if you're strapped for time. I 100% beleive you that the experiment turned out that way. The only truth I'm standing behind is that my buddy who's a pro brewer is a huge proponent that Melanoidin malt provides similar results to a decoction mash in some beer styles, most notably malty lager styles.

Relax...I didn't call your baby ugly. It's all good. :mug:
 
You can find a test that was done to compare an infussion to a decoction. The report is on the web under wahomebrewers.org Decoction Clinic Notes. From the test that was done. The beer made with the infusion process and Melanoidan came in very close to the decoction. I can see why a pro brewer would use the infusion process and Melanoidan. Time is money. It's all up to the brewer to decide, whether, spending 3 hours or 8 hours is worth the difference in taste. I think that brewers that use the decoction method are doing it to follow the way beer was made in Germany. It may be the same reason why brewers follow the English way. In my case, I burned out doing infusions. I lost interest in the process. It was like the movie Groundhog Day. IMO. There's more to play around with in the decoction method. I don't have to punch a time card. So, the extra work involved and the hours, mean nothing to me. However, I found that the time it takes to do a 5 gallon batch wasn't worth the volume of beer. So, I bought 20 gallon boilers and a 15 gallon lautertun. In my case, time is volume.

Here's Rocky and Bullwinkles version on how the English method came to be:
The Plague killed off almost all the English. What the Plague didn't wipe out, the water did. There was no one left to chop wood or dig peat to fuel the brewery boilers. The grass was 3 feet deep, growing between the cobblestones of the streets in London. The farmers, less prone to getting wiped out from fleas and bad water. Had to become the brewers. But, they still needed to farm, raise sheep and plant barley for malting. So, they figured out a quicker way to make beer. Thus came infusion. Then, some years after the Plague ended and things returned to normal. The King of Austria sent his brewmasters to England. To find out how the English made beer. Returning to Austria with samples of English beer. The brewmasters sat down with the King to sample the beer. After drinking the English beer. The brewmasters and King agreed. That, if they made beer like the English do and serve it to the people of Austria. The people would kill them. So, the Austrian brewers continued using the decoction method.
 
Unless I'm totally losing the chemistry here, one advantage for decoction mashing is space. I have a 20L/5gal mash tun. For anything over about 1.050, it's getting pretty cramped unless I dial back the batch size from 6 gallons to sub 5 gallons.

With any sort of step mash, you very quickly have two issues to confront: either a really thick mash at the beginning, or an overloaded mash tun at the end with a teensy batch sparge amount at the end.

It seems plausible that with decoction mash, I can start with an infusion to reach the early steps then use a decoction to reach the final temps thus saving me having to add additional water and still being able to balance the sparge volume so it's not excessively big or small.

Does this sound correct?
 
Back
Top