Decoction or not

I have a decent running HERMS system and want to make a Belgian Dubbel. I found a recipe I like and it calls for a 2 step decoction (A @ 149F and B @ 170F). Can I accomplish the same "affect" with just doing a regular 1 step? Maybe start @ 149 for 30 mins and then raise to 170 for 30 mins? After that sparge @170 as usual??

Having not done a decoction yet myself...its my understanding you won't get any of those malliard reactions unless you do the real decoction process.

I'd do a little digging on the style and see how common a decoction is...it might be an overly complicated recipe that could stand some simplifying.

i'm not a decoction expert, but how you read it is how i read it

I don't know Belgium Dubbels, but are you mashing at 170 for 30 min? Not mashout? Check out Braukaiser.com. He has a lot of science on Brewing techniques including decoctions. I have decocted before to hit temps. I think you could do what you were saying with your system, and if you want the decoction benefits, scoop out the grains and boil them separately and cool to 170 then return them to your system. I wonder how close your recipe is to a Hochkurz decoction that is described on Braukaiser. If memory serves, it goes 149F, decoct to 156F then decoct to mashout at 170F. That is maybe near the ballpark anyway.

Goodluck

Great page. Thanks for the link. I'm going to try a 3 step temperature mash and see how the results are. I want to avoid boiling grains in a separate kettle since that will mess with my automation (and laziness ) I know I wont get the malliard flavorings since I wont be boiling but I wonder how the rests will help the taste and eff.
I will be doing:
Protein rest: 122 @ 30 min
Maltose Rest: 144 @ 90 min
Dex rest: 160 @ 60min
Then mash out with 170.

If anything it will be interesting to do.

Melanoidin malt might be a reasonable substitute.

i've done a single decoction with a hot water infusion to go from 128-150 then decoction to 165, and also a double decoction from 128 to 152 to 165... you definitely get some great flavors and aromas from the boils.

Im going to try a little experimenting and do a batch with the right way ( with boils ). So I can see if I can tell the difference. I got great efficiency from the above but want to capture as much of the flavor this could provide as well.

Bixter1 said:

Great page. Thanks for the link. I'm going to try a 3 step temperature mash and see how the results are. I want to avoid boiling grains in a separate kettle since that will mess with my automation (and laziness ) I know I wont get the malliard flavorings since I wont be boiling but I wonder how the rests will help the taste and eff.
I will be doing:
Protein rest: 122 @ 30 min
Maltose Rest: 144 @ 90 min
Dex rest: 160 @ 60min
Then mash out with 170.

If anything it will be interesting to do.

Click to expand...

IMO/IME, resting @ 144* F for 90 minutes will give you an extremely fermentable wort. If you did do those first 2 rests as above then the wort should be iodine negative after ~10 minutes (or less) at 160* F, so you wouldn't have to go a full hour there if you didn't want to.

SpanishCastleAle said:

IMO/IME, resting @ 144* F for 90 minutes will give you an extremely fermentable wort. If you did do those first 2 rests as above then the wort should be iodine negative after ~10 minutes (or less) at 160* F, so you wouldn't have to go a full hour there if you didn't want to.

Click to expand...

is a rest at 160 common? i thought youst went to 165-170 for mash out

He also had a 170* F mash-out rest. But the rest @ 160* F isn't too uncommon. Between about 158* F and 161* F is where you get the fastest conversion (5-10 minutes). That's the temp I let my decoctions rest for ~5 minutes to get them mostly converted before I heat them up to boiling. IIRC, there was a statement in the braukaiser article (I think it was in the Hockhurz section) about an extended rest at 160A* F having an effect on head retention, but you can get iodine negative in a matter of minutes at that temp.

Take a listen to the May 27th "Basic Brewing Radio" podcast with our own Kai. I've done two decoctions, once with Kai, but it's really more about learning a fun, historical process than actually making a big improvement with the beer.

Remember, the real historical reasons for decoction mashing were:

1. Before the development of thermometers, doing a decoction was a very good way of getting consistent temperatures.

2. Malt used to be less well-modified, so you needed the decoction to really gelatanize and free up the starch particles so they could be converted. Decoction helps efficiency, particularly well less-modified malts.

Neither of those are issues anymore, and you can replicate many of the characteristics of a decoction mash with things like melanodin malt. The differences with a decocted and non-decocted beer are going to be subtle.

So if you were going to sub melanoidin to "simulate" a decoction, what % of your grist would you use it for? And what grain in your bill would you replace with it (i.e., are you using this to sub for a base grain, or in place of a specialty grain?)

SpanishCastleAle said:

He also had a 170* F mash-out rest. But the rest @ 160* F isn't too uncommon. Between about 158* F and 161* F is where you get the fastest conversion (5-10 minutes). That's the temp I let my decoctions rest for ~5 minutes to get them mostly converted before I heat them up to boiling. IIRC, there was a statement in the braukaiser article (I think it was in the Hockhurz section) about an extended rest at 160A* F having an effect on head retention, but you can get iodine negative in a matter of minutes at that temp.

Click to expand...

ah, yes, when i brought my decoctions up to boil i did stop at 158 for 10 min for converstion... i misunderstood and thought he meant pull a decoction to get the entire mash up to a rest at 160.

thats funny about the head retention at 160... the first batched i did a single decoction with has zero head retention..... makes sense now. thanks!

winvarin said:

So if you were going to sub melanoidin to "simulate" a decoction, what % of your grist would you use it for? And what grain in your bill would you replace with it (i.e., are you using this to sub for a base grain, or in place of a specialty grain?)

Click to expand...

IMO, you would use none, because AFAIAC there is usually no detectable effect from a decoction. My own experiments have shown this, and it was confirmed at NHC last summer when I tasted beers Kai had made both wsith and without decoction. None of the tasters in the room for that could pick pick out which was which.

Awesome info. My beer turned out great. Im kegging tomorrow and so far it looks and tastes great. My eff, sg and color was spot on. I did an hour for head retention. I never did this before so I wouldnt know if it made a huge impact or not until I try another batch with a shorter time. Thanks all for the info!

So the outcome of this was an awesome dubbel. It was right on the money for me. I still need to work out some of my finishing (haze) but that wasnt caused by this brewing method. Thanks all for the info. I'll probably stick with this since my HERMS is automated and doesnt require any extra of my time.

I'm glad this came up. I've been reading New Brewing Lager Beer, and as anyone who has read it knows, Greg Noonan is a HUGE proponent of decoctions, talking the process up to the point that at times, I feel like it's impossible to make a decent lager without it. This runs completely contrary to everything I have read over the last year as I prepare to get into lagering. Greg was considered one of the modern lager experts, so I found it strange that he didn't offer any dissenting information in the book.

My plan now is to start off lagering with some simple pilsner recipes and try them both ways. I plan on lagering two batches at a time, so I'll probably do one of each, twice, which would give me four batches to decide if decoction is really necessary.

Has anyone else read the book and found the same bias towards decoction that I did?

I want to make sure everyone realizes I never did a true decoction. I never take out wort, boil and then add back in. I just do the temp steps. The output of this dubbel was awesome so I probably will test out boils steps one day when Im bored but wont do this for my dubbel. I believe lagers show more of the subtle character of a beer so maybe that is why it's more important? I would try both though.

Let me know your outcome. I love pilsners and would like to hear your thoughts. I plan on "maybe" lagering a baltic porter but again since its such a heavier beer I dont think a decoction would matter.

Flame proofing label: All of this is based on my own personal opinion and tests. I could be completely off but I knows what I likes!

Denny said:

IMO, you would use none, because AFAIAC there is usually no detectable effect from a decoction. My own experiments have shown this, and it was confirmed at NHC last summer when I tasted beers Kai had made both wsith and without decoction. None of the tasters in the room for that could pick pick out which was which.

Click to expand...

interesting.

what kind of beer was this?

Using a herms you can dough in and do a 15 min rest at 135*F. This will bring out the enzymes responsible for building melanoidin production. move up to 146*F for 25 then 160* for 20 then mashout at 168*F and stir and set the bed. then sparge
It won't have the same bite as you get from a decoction but it will be good

Denny said:

IMO, you would use none, because AFAIAC there is usually no detectable effect from a decoction. My own experiments have shown this, and it was confirmed at NHC last summer when I tasted beers Kai had made both wsith and without decoction. None of the tasters in the room for that could pick pick out which was which.

Click to expand...

I hate to disagree with the venerable Denny, so I won't. Much. Denny has probably forgotten more brewing knowledge than I'll ever have in my life.

I agree that much of the time, decoctions don't make a difference. I still do them, just because it's part of the "tradition" of making some of the malty rich lagers I do, and if I'm doing a step mash anyway, might as well make it a decoction. I picture Kai talking to me when I do it, to get the "German" accent just right.

In ONE case, a Vienna lager, I swear that the decoction made a big difference. I did NOT do batches side by side, though, so I can't tell you what a non-decocted 100% Vienna malt grain bill would have done. But I can tell you that the Vienna lager I did last spring was fantastic, and I swear I could taste the malt jumping out at me from the glass.

Maybe it's just knowing I did a double decoction on it that made it taste so much richer than I expected from such a simple grain bill. But I still say that decoction was worth it!

Do I "need" to have my grains when I do a decoction boil? If not I could just pump some wort to my BK. boil it for a few mins and dump it back in. If I dont need the grains, that would rock! When I do a lager I will try a true decoction process.

My next Ale go around I might drop the maltose rest (144) to 60 mins and leave the dex rest at 60. I dont see any downside to 60 mins at 160 since, as pointed out, it will be iodine negative but will possibly help with head retention.

I need to do a better job at monitoring my efficiencies which will help adjust these times.

no no no you need the grains don't try boiling the liquor by itself.

the amount of liquor you'd need to step mash would denature all those enzymes used to convert the starches to sugar in the main mash. Using a thicker grain portion to liquor gives you even a better decoction flavor/bite then a thiner one does. just harder to work with

OLDBREW said:

no no no you need the grains don't try boiling the liquor by itself

Click to expand...

Correct. That's why you don't extract tannins in a decoction- you pull a "thick" decoction, mostly grains with just enough liquid.

I figured as much but was hoping for a method I could easily automate. I'll probaly buy a hot plate to do this with when I get to my first pilsner or lighter lager. Thanks yall!

Sorry if this info is found elsewhere, but why does a thick decoction extract no tannins but thin one does?

when you pull a decoction you take about a third or so of the mash and bring it up to saach rest, then up to boil. you are actually making an old fashion porridge or oatmeal type cereal. the starches have already been converted, and you use the maillard reaction to allow the melanoidin and some caramelisation to come forward along with the toasty malt flavors of the grist.

if you keep the PH low, tannins are not a problem. its when the ph levels rise sugars are reduced and the temperature is increased that produces tannin extraction. this is usually in the lauter stage when adding fresh water that brings the ph up around 5.8>

Im going to run this again. It was soooo good. Same mash temp profile except 15 mins at 160. Next time I am going to try some melanoidin malt. Will let you all know who it turns out.