Decoction vs melanoidin malt

I've completed a study evaluating the effects of triple-decoction mashing compared to a no-sparge with 5% melanoidin malt. Here's a link to the whole thing: http://nateobrew.blogspot.com/2012/08/triple-decoction-vs-no-sparge.html

The long and short of it:
1) Decoction probably won't make your beer better.
2) Using melanoidin malt doesn't emulate decoction mashing
3) 3X leaned toward dry/bitter, 5% leaned toward malty/balanced. (OG and FG were identical)
4) Evaluators significantly preferred 5% over 3X.

This study was really easy to put together, very hard to analyze. I've uploaded all of my raw data so you can look at it and decide for yourself if I've drawn reasonable conclusions.

Cool study, very well written. I would have like to see a control added with neither method used to see if the recipe alone was changed significantly by either method.

watersr said:

Cool study, very well written. I would have like to see a control added with neither method used to see if the recipe alone was changed significantly by either method.

Click to expand...

The problem was I could only brew two beers at once. I wanted to control as many variables as I could, and I wanted to use "typical" homebrewer-sized batches. I could've done two gallon batches and fit more in, but I wasn't sure how the change in batch size would affect the results. Since I could only compare two beers, I went with the two beers I was most interested in comparing.

One certified judge still confused the two beers, so I think differences were pretty subtle.

Interesting... I'll have to look this over when I find some time.

I've never used melanoidin malt, but have done a few triple decoctions. I find the maltiness a lot stronger than the single-step infusion mash that I typically use, but the time constraints needed for a 3X is crazy. Perhaps if I get the time, I can reproduce your experiment and see how my results coincide...

Nice job, and great writeup.

jpc said:

Perhaps if I get the time, I can reproduce your experiment and see how my results coincide...

Click to expand...

I strongly recommend doing a blind triangle test if you can. When I did an A/B test it was really obvious what the differences were. In an A/B/X test I had to work a lot harder to tell any difference. A/B tests tend to exaggerate differences.

jpc said:

Interesting... I'll have to look this over when I find some time.

I've never used melanoidin malt, but have done a few triple decoctions. I find the maltiness a lot stronger than the single-step infusion mash that I typically use, but the time constraints needed for a 3X is crazy. Perhaps if I get the time, I can reproduce your experiment and see how my results coincide...

Click to expand...

What malt (type and maltster) are you using when you do your decoctions? I was under the impression that most malts are well enough modified that the decoction doesn't really provide any added benefit. Only in the case of a less modified to under modified malt will it come through in the end.

Challenger440 said:

What malt (type and maltster) are you using when you do your decoctions? I was under the impression that most malts are well enough modified that the decoction doesn't really provide any added benefit. Only in the case of a less modified to under modified malt will it come through in the end.

Click to expand...

Decoction does two things for sure, regardless of modification level: increase extract efficiency and reduce hot break material in the kettle. I have full details of recipe and mash schedule if you wanna click through the link to "latest version of results and summary." The Kolbach index mostly impacts the temp and length of protein rests, although if it's actually undermodified your extract efficiency will suffer a bit compared to a single infusion. You can't buy malt with an SNR low enough to "undermodified," but you could make it yourself.

It was a great experiment, Nate, and I hope the results get the viewing they deserve.

Challenger440 said:

What malt (type and maltster) are you using when you do your decoctions? I was under the impression that most malts are well enough modified that the decoction doesn't really provide any added benefit. Only in the case of a less modified to under modified malt will it come through in the end.

Click to expand...

I'm using "typical" modern malts-- Weyermann Pilsen/Munich/Vienna, with small amounts of specialty grains included.

Highly-modified malts eliminate the need for the rests, according to everything I've read; this is true for both decoction and infusion mashing. But I've also read that decoction provides benefits that increase the maltiness of a brew. This is the reason that some suggest using melanoidin malt in and infusion mash to get the same maltiness as a decoction; this is what the OP was trying to study.

Personally, I just like wasting time doing the triple decoctions . No, not really... The real reason I do it is that it makes me appreciate the old brewing methods, even if I don't have to. Yes, I'm a bit... strange.

Very interesting! Thank you for this.

Thanks for all the kind words everyone. Over the years I've gone from being a decoction skeptic, to a true believer, back to a skeptic again. After this study, I'm more willing to use decoction mashes in certain situations. Decoction does a couple cool things that infusion mashing doesn't, but it definitely doesn't increase "maltiness" more than specialty grain can.

Nate, its posts like yours that compelled me to join this website in the first place; really appreciate your sharing the results. I have been reading up quite a bit on this very topic and have to say that anecdotal evidence from guys like you go a long way. One day i hope to contribute back to this forum with such helpful info as you have. Cheers my friend,

Very interesting and well done. You probably should have done the comparision with single dedoction, or at most a double decoction. Most German Breweries have moved in this direction due to better quality and higher modified malts.

Trillium said:

Very interesting and well done. You probably should have done the comparision with single dedoction, or at most a double decoction. Most German Breweries have moved in this direction due to better quality and higher modified malts.

Click to expand...

I wanted to go with the largest conceivable difference in mashing to see if there really was a difference. Still, the beers were very similar, and a couple people mistakenly ID'd duplicates. I think the potential effects from one mashing regime vs another are astonishingly small, in practice. If the most extreme ends of the mashing spectrum yielded very similar results, I doubt intermediate mashing schedules would be discernibly different.

But, I'd love for someone to prove me wrong, and I'd be happy to volunteer my taste buds if anyone wants to perform a similar experiment.

I would also volunteer my taste buds, you know, for the sake of the hobby.

I didn't start out as a decoction skeptic but I'm definitely more open to the skepticism than I used to be. I've tasted commercial beers I'd swear were decocted but weren't and ones that were that I detect no character associated with decoction mashes. Live Oak Hefeweizen is an exceptional hefeweizen and conventional logic says that's definitely a beer that's decocted because it's very thick and malty but it's not. They just do a single infusion. I'm not sure if they use melanoidin malt or carapils or something else but it's definitely not missing anything without the decoction mash.

In my own brewing I feel like there's a noticeable difference in a few of my beers I decoction mash so I don't think I would give it up although I could probably get very close to the same effect with some melanoidin malt and/or carapils.

The triple-decocted beer was described as less malty than the melanoidin malt beer. So if you want malty, don't expect a decoction to automatically give you that profile.

There was definitely a very small difference, though the decocted beer was the opposite of the "conventional wisdom" expectation. It was perceived as less malty and more bitter.

Trillium said:

Very interesting and well done. You probably should have done the comparision with single dedoction, or at most a double decoction. Most German Breweries have moved in this direction due to better quality and higher modified malts.

Click to expand...

I'm with this guy (gal?). Why a compare with a no-sparge? You're leaving out the control from the scientific method. It's a great write up and all but a proper experiment would be same recipe, same yeast, same sparge, different mash methods. If you then determine there is a difference, then introduce the melanoidin. I don't mean to be naggy but this is a pretty frequently disputed subject and it could use a good thorough experiment.

If tasters struggled to identify how and which beers are different in the most extreme case, how would making the beers more similar yield better results? But, if you think your experiment would be more valid, I'd be happy to lend my tastebuds.

Nateo said:

If tasters struggled to identify how and which beers are different in the most extreme case, how would making the beers more similar yield better results?

Click to expand...

I agree with this.
Thanks for taking the time to do the experiment and post the results for all of us to judge for ourselves.

Sub'd, i love the science and empirical evidence.

Thanks for taking the time to post this stuff. It's helped to confirm some of my own thoughts and less scientific research.

Awesome stuff! I've got to ask though... why not brew a normal batch without the malanoiden? That would allow you to solve the age old question of "does decoction mashing actually increase maltiness or not".

Just wondering. But nice job.

electrolight said:

Awesome stuff! I've got to ask though... why not brew a normal batch without the malanoiden? That would allow you to solve the age old question of "does decoction mashing actually increase maltiness or not".

Just wondering. But nice job.

Click to expand...

Been done...take a look at http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf starting on pg. 25

Wow! That is legit. I appreciate the source. I know it is a close call. But I appreciate the fact that they had a no-preference option. Good stuff. Glad to know that if you put more work into your brew you can get a better result. Even if only barely.

Nice experiment an write-up...thanks for sharing.


Many specialty grains were created with the intent of mimicking the effects of different brewing techniques, right?

electrolight said:

Wow! That is legit. I appreciate the source. I know it is a close call. But I appreciate the fact that they had a no-preference option. Good stuff. Glad to know that if you put more work into your brew you can get a better result. Even if only barely.

Click to expand...

That's one way to look at it. I see it as if you combine those who didn't prefer decoction with the no preference, it's more than those who preferred decoction. To me, that says that decoction won't make a noticeably better beer.

Weezy said:

Nice experiment an write-up...thanks for sharing.


Many specialty grains were created with the intent of mimicking the effects of different brewing techniques, right?

Click to expand...

It's covered in more depth in the book Drew Beechum and I just finished (minutes ago!). The book will be out in Nov., and info will also be available on our website Experimentalbrew.com

Denny said:

It's covered in more depth in the book Drew Beechum and I just finished (minutes ago!). The book will be out in Nov., and info will also be available on our website Experimentalbrew.com

Click to expand...

Very cool.

In the A-H-Ahso experiment, decoction verses infusion. The decoction brewer is using the same ingredients as the infuser. High modified malt, designed for the infusion process of dumping hot water on malt and waiting for something magical to happen. Why not have the infuser use ingredients suitable for decoction method and see what the results are? Let the infuser use lower modified malt, the preference of decoction brewers that understand the process. Give the other fox the key to the hen house one time. Decoction brewing isn't for every one. Especially, now a days with time being so valuable. However, it takes more time to produce a Benz than a haywagon. It all boils down to what allows a person the opportunity to have fun and be happy. Basically, that's what every hobby is about, or should be about. To me, the infusion process is about as much fun and interesting as watching grass grow. But, that's me. To each his own.

It's nearly impossible to find undermodified malt to use. And if I got Benz beer by doing decoctions, I would. But blind tastings have shown me that there's no reason for me to do it other than enjoying the process. And I hate to expend energy that gives me no payback.

So, you did an experiment using malt not suitable for the decoction process? The experiment was performed incorrectly and is useless.


Low modified malt is nearly impossible to get? Not according to Crisp Malting. Crisp Euro Pils, low modified, stocked at the LHBS where I buy malt. Weyermann floor malt according to batch number, low to slight modification, stocked at the LHBS where I buy malt. Both manufacturers recommend decoction method or step when using the malt.
www.weyermann.de/downloads/pdf/Voigt_Poster_Trends in Brewing Ghent 2010.pdf
www.crispmalt.co/docs/Crisp EURO Pilsner Malt.pdf


Here's another experiment not done haphazardly.
www.wahomebrewers.org/clinics/242-decoction-clinic-notes

If you are able to produce the same quality of beer by dumping hot water on grain, as a correctly performed decoction using the ingredients suitable for the method, produces. You'd be the only one on the planet.

Years ago, someone said. "If I put a radio in everyone's home I will rule the world." He also, said. "The bigger the lie, the more the people will believe it."

Give the other fox the key to the hen house.

Such vitriol! It's homebrewing! I asked homebrewers to do whatever homewbrewers do. I know the guys who did the WA experiment well and I tasted the beers. Calm down.

The argument of "You have to use poorly modified malt to give decoction a 'fair shot'" is in itself an argument against decoction. If I have to race someone but insist on them hopping with one leg while I can run with two, can you call it a contest to see who runs faster?