Decoction brewing : Does it change the taste of beer a lot ?

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.

Seb-Ass

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone, I'm a huge fan of german beer and it push me to try to brew one of these. I have heard that most German beer is brewed by decoction. I look on the web and a lot of recipe of (for exemple) Hefeweizen is brew by one step infusion. Does it change the taste of the beer ? Is theres some german style (Altbier, bock, helles, ...) that is not brewed by decoction ?

Thanks a lot.
 
You would probably not use decoction mash for a hefeweizen

You're incorrect, hefeweizen's are most commonly done in Germany via decoction, though maybe not so much double or triple these days.

Eric Warner wrote the book German Wheat Beer:

http://www.amazon.com/German-Wheat-Beer-Classic-Style/dp/0937381349/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346174215&sr=8-1&keywords=german+wheat+beer

I've read it and he studied at the Weihenstephan brewing school and everything in his book says decoction.


Rev.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Does it change the taste of the beer ?"

If you really love german beer, I think it worth experimenting. Brew 1 batch using a simple infusion and another with the whole decoction and see if you and your friends can tell the difference. I'd start with a hefe since those have a short turnaround.
 
Check out Denny Conn's website. He talks about experimenting with it and not tasting a result with the extra effort. However, other people I have heard swear it makes a difference. I have never done it.

Gordon strong suggests using a no-sparge approach to maltier beers like bocks that contribute to a boosted malt body. This is all second hand, I will let others chime in about their actual experience. I say go for it and see what you think.
 
Ask yourself this...

Do you brew to be done as fast a possible?

Or

Do you brew for the fun and the experience, and the longer the better?

I brew to brew, not be be done as fast as possible, because then it becomes a chore, this is a hobby right, and hobbies are made to take up time and entertain you.

So that being said, decoct, take your time, and enjoy. I loved my first decoction, my garage smelt so good, couldn't tell you if it made my beer better but it was great.
 
He talks about experimenting with it and not tasting a result with the extra effort. However, other people I have heard swear it makes a difference.

I've done it a few times, but only with Weyermann malts and I definitely tasted a difference. I'll reiterate, this was only with Weyermann malt though. I was ok with the taste using single decoction but it was always missing something and the decoction fixed it. When I made a hefeweizen up with Rahr malt though it was fine simply with a single infusion, so who knows... might be that some malts really benefit from it while others don't as much.


Rev.
 
Ask yourself this...

Do you brew to be done as fast a possible?

Or

Do you brew for the fun and the experience, and the longer the better?

I brew to brew, not be be done as fast as possible, because then it becomes a chore, this is a hobby right, and hobbies are made to take up time and entertain you.

So that being said, decoct, take your time, and enjoy. I loved my first decoction, my garage smelt so good, couldn't tell you if it made my beer better but it was great.


This is the main point here IMO. I just did a double decocted Oktoberfest and loved it. I got to get hands on with my beer, study and do research on a new method of brewing and then show off my knowledge to all my friends. That said, it was a ton of work and a long, very hot day but I'd do it again and I haven't even tasted the beer yet.
 
Assuming you have well modified malt (I haven't found malt that isn't) a decoction isn't necessary. I happened to be brewing a doppelbock the first time I used my new system, and for testing it out used a step mash and some melanoidin malt. It came out fantastic.

That said I agree fully that brewing isn't a race and have since returned to decoction mashing all German lagers.
 
I honestly have -zero- experience with decoction mashing but I was looking into it for a brew I was doing a couple of months ago. A lot of things that I found seemed to say that with modern, well modified malts it isn't helping you at all, and may actually hurt some of the enzyme activity considering the use of modern malts. I'm not saying this is true, just wondering if any more experienced brewers have input on the subject.
 
That's true, if referring to traditional decoctions. A decoction schedule called hochkurtz is better suited for well modified malts. It's a double decoction that eliminates the enormous protein rest seen in a traditional triple decoction.
 
lowtones84 said:
I honestly have -zero- experience with decoction mashing but I was looking into it for a brew I was doing a couple of months ago. A lot of things that I found seemed to say that with modern, well modified malts it isn't helping you at all, and may actually hurt some of the enzyme activity considering the use of modern malts. I'm not saying this is true, just wondering if any more experienced brewers have input on the subject.

Its not the decoction process, its extended protein rests which can cause issues
 
Randy Mosher recommends a 120 minute boil if your not into decoctions to simulate the flavors created...never tried a decoction but I will definitely try the 120 boil...I'm heading in that direction anyway with some of my brews
 
Calichusetts said:
Randy Mosher recommends a 120 minute boil if your not into decoctions to simulate the flavors created...never tried a decoction but I will definitely try the 120 boil...I'm heading in that direction anyway with some of my brews

That works to a large extent, and using melanoidin malts (eg Vienna, Munich, melanoidin) to emulate the contribution of the decoction process is even better, though I find some combination of the two to be best.

In fact, after doing several tests (blind triangle taste tests with a dozen local homebrewers), I've convinced myself and all but one of the homebrewers to abandon decoction mashing altogether and use these methods to achieve the same profile. It's not about "racing" - and the option of using a 2- to 4-hour boil time should be proof enough of that - but about simplifying the brewday and even simplifying the brewery itself.

By moving the decoction-profile from being a result of process to being a result of recipe development, we've found it both gives us a finer degree of control of the results, and a greater ability to focus on the truly important stuff on brew day - the stuff that CAN'T be emulated well by other means. It also gave a number of us the freedom to design the breweries that we really wanted (eg my eHERMS system) with benefits such as more precise control, more streamlined processes, etc, since we were able to give up the ability to easily decoct without any concern about not actually being able to properly make those kinds of beers.
 
I have done only three or four decoctions and I thoroughly enjoy the process. As mentioned above, I'm not certain it adds a lot to the final result, but I love the process as much as the final result.

As far as a suggestion to the OP, I'd give the decoction process a try and see if you like it.
 
That works too. Personally I like feeling like I'm channeling some old German juju, but in reality its probably just about the melanoidin and malt modification. Add some melanoidin malt, boil longer, decoction, probably all the same in the end.
 
bottlenose said:
That works too. Personally I like feeling like I'm channeling some old German juju, but in reality its probably just about the melanoidin and malt modification. Add some melanoidin malt, boil longer, decoction, probably all the same in the end.

Yep.
 
Add some melanoidin malt, boil longer, decoction, probably all the same in the end.

And you could just go to the store and find a beer that you enjoy. In the end, what passes your lips would probably be the same.

Homebrewing is like a lot of other leisure time activities. You get people who like to say they homebrew and you get people who like to homebrew. For the former, the shorter and easier the better. For the latter, we'll find ways to embrace the process and its history. To explore, to experiment, to enjoy the hobby for all its worth. Great beer is the destination, but it’s all about the journey.
 
Check out Denny Conn's website. He talks about experimenting with it and not tasting a result with the extra effort.

It wasn't just me. There were a LOT of blind tasters. The ones who preferred the non decocted beer or had no preference outnumbered those who preferred the decocted beer. The study is at http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf sgtarting on pg. 25.

BTW, according to Kai Troester, who did a beer tour of Germany recently, very few (as in almost no) German breweries use decoction any longer.
 
Denny said:
It wasn't just me. There were a LOT of blind tasters. The ones who preferred the non decocted beer or had no preference outnumbered those who preferred the decocted beer. The study is at http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf sgtarting on pg. 25.

BTW, according to Kai Troester, who did a beer tour of Germany recently, very few (as in almost no) German breweries use decoction any longer.

Was it a triangle test? You said most preferred the non-decoction, but that really doesn't say anything about whether there is truly a perceivable difference. If there is, then decoction mashing can still be worth it, since obviously not EVERYONE preferred the non-decoction.

Keep in mind, I've already declared that I've abandoned the method and emulate it mostly with melanoidin malts. But there's a big difference between "no perceivable difference" and "considered inferior by most".
 
Was it a triangle test? You said most preferred the non-decoction, but that really doesn't say anything about whether there is truly a perceivable difference. If there is, then decoction mashing can still be worth it, since obviously not EVERYONE preferred the non-decoction.

Keep in mind, I've already declared that I've abandoned the method and emulate it mostly with melanoidin malts. But there's a big difference between "no perceivable difference" and "considered inferior by most".

Did you see the study by Nateo posted here and on the AHA website? He did a triple decocted batch and a batch where he tried to emulate that using melanoidin. The conclusion was not even close. As one of the tasters, I agree.

My test was not a triangle test. Wish I had known about them when I did it, and all my experiments since then have used it. It wasn't that most preferred the nondecocted beers, but that those who preferred non decocted or had no preference outnumbered those who preferred the decocted. That says to me that there's no clear evidence that decoction makes a beer that more people prefer.
 
It wasn't just me. There were a LOT of blind tasters. The ones who preferred the non decocted beer or had no preference outnumbered those who preferred the decocted beer. The study is at http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf sgtarting on pg. 25.

BTW, according to Kai Troester, who did a beer tour of Germany recently, very few (as in almost no) German breweries use decoction any longer.

I remember when you presented that info that I was surprised, as I think I can tell the beers I've decocted from the ones I haven't, and I prefer the decocted versions.

EXCEPT- they are my beers and I think that is why I think I prefer the decocted versions. Does that make sense? They are my babies, and I know how hard I slaved over them!

I don't think I can make a BoPils without at least a double decoction. It just seems wrong!
 
What you're experiencing may be the "I did all that work and dammit it made a difference" syndrome! In order to truly decide, you need to do a test similar to what I did. When you simply say "This decocted beer is better than the non decocted version I made last time" there are too many variables and it's too easy to fool yourself. I've done some study on that phenomenon, too. I think the best reason to do a decoction is becasue you want to and enjoy the experience.
 
What you're experiencing may be the "I did all that work and dammit it made a difference" syndrome! In order to truly decide, you need to do a test similar to what I did. When you simply say "This decocted beer is better than the non decocted version I made last time" there are too many variables and it's too easy to fool yourself. I've done some study on that phenomenon, too. I think the best reason to do a decoction is becasue you want to and enjoy the experience.

Yes, I guess that was my point. I rarely decoct and rarely step-mash, but it feels like I "have" to, in order to make a BoPils and make it feel like I did right.

I've always called liking our own beers (even that bad ones) "Ugly Baby Syndrome". I think everybody knows what I mean- you see some hideously ugly babies out there, but the parents think they are the most beautiful babies in the world. I think UBS strikes brewers in great numbers as I've judged a LOT of horrible beer in competitions but the brewers think it's awesome.

I had a guy send me a few lagers a few years ago. In every one of them was an astringent harshness that made the beers tough to drink. When he asked for a "honest critique", I gently mentioned that there was an astringency issue. He answered, "Oh, yes, I think I noticed that. But how did you like my beer?!?!" UBS.

I think I have UBS on my decocted beers. I mean, I worked for hours on the beer, and darn it, I can tell the difference! :D

I will say that for the BoPils, since there is nothing in there except pilsner malt and a hint of carapils, that maybe the slight darkening makes me think it's "better" decocted than not. Maybe someday I will not decoct a BoPils- but I doubt it. :cross:
 
I started to question the whole thing when I had 2 kegs of pils on tap. Identical recipes, but one was decocted and the other wasn't. The keg of decocted pils blew and when I poured a glass of the other one I was struck by how much it tasted like the decocted version. That started me looking for answers.
 
"Yes, I guess that was my point. I rarely decoct and rarely step-mash, but it feels like I "have" to, in order to make a BoPils and make it feel like I did right."

My sentiments exactly!

When brewers say that there's little or no difference between the taste from a decoction when compared to an infusion, may be due to using boiling water to hit the rest temps. Then, pulling one decoction to hit mash out. That type of process doesn't take the mash through all the temp ranges enough times, since there is only one boil. Blending the English and German system doesn't do justice to a Pils. Years ago, I would infusion and then pull a decoction to mash out and the finished beer did taste much like an infusion. I just didn't have the equipment back then to do a tri-decoction in a practical way. The beer was OK, but didn't have what I was looking for in a Pils.....Since upgrading my equipment, I brew Pils always using tri-decoction. I use two types of grain, Weyermans floor malt and sauer malz. Budvar, when I can get it. Nothing else. Crystal and other flavorings aren't needed. I pay strict attention to water chemistry and pH. So, if a brewer is attempting a lager using the decoction method and he/she is using the same water chemistry for an ale. I'd say that the both brews would be fairly close in taste. If a brewer using a decoction method makes a beer that "blows". Then, it was poorly brewed. Probably brewed without attention given to the water or pH. Maybe scorched. There's a difference between a hay wagon and a Benz. With the decoction process. It is better to have a seperate mash tun without a plate that is direct fired and a seperate lautertun. Instead of using an MLT that is RIMS, HERMS or direct fired. Or a cooler, where boiling infusions are needed for temp maintenance. Start out with the usual 1.5 qt./lb. at a hundred or so degrees. Acid up the mash. It may take a couple of hours. Use heat instead of infusions for temp maintenance, while bringing the decoctions to boiling. If a stove is used to boil the decoction, it is probably taking too long and the rest time of the main mash will be over extended. With a Pils, the only extra water needed is during the fly sparge in the lautertun. It takes less BTUs to heat mash than to bring water to a boil. So, why waste fuel or the time to boil water for infusions? Regardless of what the so called Guru's say about certain rests not needed because the grain is more modified. They are needed, if a true Pilsner, clear and crisp is going to be brewed. Otherwise, you'll be making a psuedo pils, that tastes more like an ale. Here's another thing. The plate used for the English system is much different than one for decoction. Braids, perforated plates, hacksaw slotted pipe and bazookas aren't suitable for decoction.
 
After reading a bit of this thread allow me to ask a question. What would one recommend (step wise, mash temp, etc) for a mash tun cooler and batch sparging when brewing a BoPils and NOT using decoction?

Thanks in advance to denny, Yooper, etc who reply.
 
"Yes, I guess that was my point. I rarely decoct and rarely step-mash, but it feels like I "have" to, in order to make a BoPils and make it feel like I did right."

My sentiments exactly!

When brewers say that there's little or no difference between the taste from a decoction when compared to an infusion, may be due to using boiling water to hit the rest temps. Then, pulling one decoction to hit mash out. That type of process doesn't take the mash through all the temp ranges enough times, since there is only one boil. Blending the English and German system doesn't do justice to a Pils. Years ago, I would infusion and then pull a decoction to mash out and the finished beer did taste much like an infusion. I just didn't have the equipment back then to do a tri-decoction in a practical way. The beer was OK, but didn't have what I was looking for in a Pils.....Since upgrading my equipment, I brew Pils always using tri-decoction. I use two types of grain, Weyermans floor malt and sauer malz. Budvar, when I can get it. Nothing else. Crystal and other flavorings aren't needed. I pay strict attention to water chemistry and pH. So, if a brewer is attempting a lager using the decoction method and he/she is using the same water chemistry for an ale. I'd say that the both brews would be fairly close in taste. If a brewer using a decoction method makes a beer that "blows". Then, it was poorly brewed. Probably brewed without attention given to the water or pH. Maybe scorched. There's a difference between a hay wagon and a Benz. With the decoction process. It is better to have a seperate mash tun without a plate that is direct fired and a seperate lautertun. Instead of using an MLT that is RIMS, HERMS or direct fired. Or a cooler, where boiling infusions are needed for temp maintenance. Start out with the usual 1.5 qt./lb. at a hundred or so degrees. Acid up the mash. It may take a couple of hours. Use heat instead of infusions for temp maintenance, while bringing the decoctions to boiling. If a stove is used to boil the decoction, it is probably taking too long and the rest time of the main mash will be over extended. With a Pils, the only extra water needed is during the fly sparge in the lautertun. It takes less BTUs to heat mash than to bring water to a boil. So, why waste fuel or the time to boil water for infusions? Regardless of what the so called Guru's say about certain rests not needed because the grain is more modified. They are needed, if a true Pilsner, clear and crisp is going to be brewed. Otherwise, you'll be making a psuedo pils, that tastes more like an ale. Here's another thing. The plate used for the English system is much different than one for decoction. Braids, perforated plates, hacksaw slotted pipe and bazookas aren't suitable for decoction.

Where to start? I based my opinions on doing real decoctions, not step infusions. I do those sometimes also, but I'm well aware of the difference. The pH is always carefully monitored and controlled.

In regards to your comments about what equipment is suitable for decoction, you;re going to have to prove to me why "Braids, perforated plates, hacksaw slotted pipe and bazookas aren't suitable for decoction". I can't see how any pof that would make a difference. I also don't see how a separate lauter tun would have any bearing on the efficacy of a decoction mash. You make a lot pf pronouncements, but I don't see evidence to support any of them.
 
After reading a bit of this thread allow me to ask a question. What would one recommend (step wise, mash temp, etc) for a mash tun cooler and batch sparging when brewing a BoPils and NOT using decoction?

Thanks in advance to denny, Yooper, etc who reply.

99% of the time I make a pils using a 90 min. single infusion mash at 146-148. It wins awards so it must no totally suck.
 
I haven't done a decoction yet, but with a new chest freezer this summer that can be used for lagering that may change soon. I have a question though.

If decoction mashing produces flavor changes from melanoidin production, could you simulate the results by pulling off a gallon or so of the wort from the boil and reduce it down to a cup or two on the stovetop. It seems like this should put the sugars through the exact same process. Am I confusing myself here, or would this be a reasonable way to emulate a decoction
 
Nope, that gives you a sweeter flavor than what decoction (supposedly) does. And keep in mind that melanoidins are a color, not a flavor.
 
I do double decoctions for all of my brews. I use decoction mash for several reasons.
1. To step through a series of mashing temperatures in order to achieve the highest yield from the grain, impart certain flavors and characteristics from the grain to the end beer. The temperatures will vary by style, for example my Centennial IPA I will mash in three steps: Initial is 122F for 30 minutes, first decoction moves it to 140 for 40 minutes, second decoction moves to 153 for 30 minutes. This produces a lighter bodied beer with more fermentable sugars with a higher ABV. My oatmeal stout is very different, initial strike takes it to 128 for 30, then to 144 for 20 then 156 for 40 and this produces a heavier bodied beer with more nonfermentable sugars and lower ABV. The same types of results can be produced with step mashing, which leads to my next point.
2. Controlling mash consistency and temperature.
Step mashing involves adding X amount of water at Y temp to achieve Step 1, then adding the next batch of water for 2 and so on until you get all of the mash water in. I have used step mashing effectively but found controlling water amount and heat and temp accuracy challenging. I ended up with a thin mash and lower efficiency several times. Once I discovered decoction mashing, the beer flavor was improved (IMHO) I had better control of mash consistency and resulting temperatures, so I abandoned step mashing.
3rd reason I use decoction mashing is in beers with none grain adjuncts such as pumpkin in my smoked pumpkin porter, decocting the whole pumpkin with the grain helps impart the flavor more readily. Same with cranberries in my cranberry walnut Christmas ale. So when using fruit and other none grain adjuncts I highly recommend decoction mashing.
The final reason I use decoction mashing and possibly the most important is that it is just plain fun and I like the smell and the results.
Does decoction mashing make my beer better ... I think it does, but I have no evidence or proof and don't really care, I like doing them and in the end that is what really matters. I suggest you try decoction mashing and Step mashing, if you like it and find it fun or think it makes better beer, then cool, if not then you have gained knowledge and experience.

Best Wishes..

George
 
Back
Top