I'm pretty new to AG and am looking for recipes. I see a lot of them call for decoctions and protein rests. What happens if I just do a single step infusion?
Do I have to decoct?
- Thread starter mattmcl
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
WBC
Well-Known Member
No, all modern grains are fully Modified and do not require step mashing.
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,471
- Reaction score
- 35
You don't have to do anything...you'll still end up with beer, and probably damn good beer at that. But decoction mashes can bring wonderful body and maltiness to a recipe, so it might be a technique you'd like to learn.
I'd leave the decoctions until you have got the standard process sorted.
You can do a decoction very easily even with a simple cooler mash tun.
Mashing at an higher temperature can be a good trade of instead of decoctions.
You can do a decoction very easily even with a simple cooler mash tun.
Mashing at an higher temperature can be a good trade of instead of decoctions.
maltMonkey
Well-Known Member
It will turn out fine with a single infusion mash. There is a lot of debate about whether decoctions add any difference to the final product. Denny Conn doesn't believe they change anything (he's done panel blind taste tests) and I believe Jamil said the same thing....so that's always been good enough for me. I would like to try one sometime just so I can judge for myself.
I recommend experienced brewers try it for themselves, so they can reach the same conclusions!
For new brewers, a single infusion will always work just fine.
Whether it is noticeable is one thing but it will make some difference.
Because you a boiling the grain you are changing it's flavour, colour, chemistry and ferment properties. That will make some difference.
But it's not something a beginner needs to worry about.
Because you a boiling the grain you are changing it's flavour, colour, chemistry and ferment properties. That will make some difference.
But it's not something a beginner needs to worry about.
Wow- right from the horse's mouth!
Wait- Denny, I am not calling you a horse!
Thanks for the info- I appreciate it. I've been reading many of Kaiser's post on German brewing and decoctions and am trying to get my read around what kind of results I actually get. Sometimes I think that I am anticipating that the maibock is maltier, since I know it's from a decoction, and haven't actually done a blind taste test.
Thanks for the link.
I'm not disputing other experiences and opinions but my experiences says different. I may be wrong but I only have my experiences to go on.
I must admit if I want maltier and darker I tend to go for an higher mash and speciality grains.
And I haven;t gone to the lenghts stated to do side by side tests.
This is why I state it's not an important method for a beginner to be concerned about.
I'm not disputing other experiences and opinions but my experiences says different. I may be wrong but I only have my experiences to go on.
I must admit if I want maltier and darker I tend to go for an higher mash and speciality grains.
And I haven;t gone to the lenghts stated to do side by side tests.
This is why I state it's not an important method for a beginner to be concerned about.
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,471
- Reaction score
- 35
I certainly agree with that. Managing strike/sparge/mash temps and volumes is plenty to keep a beginner busy. Once the basics are second nature, then it's time to start considering more complicated methods.
High maltiness without decoction:
Mash at 157-160
Mash for 40 minutes.
Boil your first 1.5 gallons of runoff for 20 minutes to carmalize.
I had a 1.039 APA take 2nd in a recent competition and the comments were all about the nice, rich malt profile that balanced out the hops very well. I used the above techniques and nobody had a clue it was 6 points lower than the minimum range.
Mash at 157-160
Mash for 40 minutes.
Boil your first 1.5 gallons of runoff for 20 minutes to carmalize.
I had a 1.039 APA take 2nd in a recent competition and the comments were all about the nice, rich malt profile that balanced out the hops very well. I used the above techniques and nobody had a clue it was 6 points lower than the minimum range.
chefchris
Well-Known Member
I've been curious about this. How does this effect your efficiency since you're boiling down and ending up short on your volume?
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,471
- Reaction score
- 35
I don't think it it will, ultimately you're still boiling down to your target volume. It's just that a concentrated portion of your wort is boiled separately, giving you more caramelization.
So can you use this process for any mash or style? (I'm still in the process of of going AG here.)
ohiobrewtus
Well-Known Member
What's the body like on these beers, BM? Can you maintain medium body while maintaining a mash temp that high?
Absolutely. Remember that it's only a 1039 beer. The high/short mash makes up for the lack of gravity. I enjoy several beers in a session. I like them malty and I like a healthy dose of hops flavor/aroma. This is just a way to bring down the ABV but still keep it rich enough to fool even recognized BJCP judges.
I'm only caramelizing the first 1.5 gallons (or so). I still sparge enough to get my targeted pre-boil volume. The caramelizing is to impart a particular flavor...maltiness. Once it's there...it can't be taken out by topping off your pre-boil volume.
So then this process is used more on lower gravity beers?
Not necessarily. It can be used on any recipe/style where you want to impart a more malty taste/mouthfeel.
Generally though...most really big beers have plenty of body already. But for someone who want to make a nice "thick" brew for those winter months and not want to end up with a 1.110 OG...this method will do that.
It's a pretty easy way to take a 1.060 beer and make it taste like a 1.080 beer.
ohiobrewtus
Well-Known Member
A higher OG doesn't always mean a 'thicker' mouthfeel though. I have a Belgian Golden Strong that comes in at about 10.5% abv and is lighter in body than most of the sub 1.050 beers that I brew. Body is all about mash temp and time.
Just wanted to get a little deeper on BM's post above...
No...you're right. I was being too general.
Plus....you probably get much better attenuation than I do
I will have to try this soon, I like a nice body...you sure you do this just as a hobby BM...or should I say "oh great one"?:cross:
After I did that experiment, I did a lot of study of how preconceptions influence perception and something called the recognition heuristic. It's really fascinating how you can fool yourself! When I did my FWH experiment, I KNEW I could tell which beer was FWH and which wasn't....until I did a blind triangle tasting! I picked the wrong beer 2 times out of 3, and the one time I got it right I identified it as the wrong beer! I encourage everyone who's trrying something new to use the blind traingle tasting as a way to really evaluate what they're doing.
maltMonkey
Well-Known Member
I'm getting OT here, but I did an experiment where I split a batch into 6 and pitched 6 different yeasts. All liquid yeast except for the 6th in which I pitched Nottingham. I have a bias towards liquid yeast and only used the Nottingham because I didn't have a 6th liquid yeast on hand. After blind taste tests a few months later, the clear winner was the Nottingham. I was surprised and shocked.
That's what makes this site great. No fear of a good experiment and sharing the results.
By the by...you ought to go back to that thread and bring it to a conclusion. It's a good piece of empirical data.
menschmaschine
Well-Known Member
Lots of great info in this thread and I can't take away from Denny's experiments. However, there are equal proponents for decoction. Here's a excerpt from Noonan's New Brewing Lager Beer section called "Why Decoction Mash?":
All that in mind, it certainly isn't necessary with malts available to homebrewers and, if one chooses to decoct (or step-mash), one has to be mindful of the relationship between step temps and the malt (analysis).
All that in mind, it certainly isn't necessary with malts available to homebrewers and, if one chooses to decoct (or step-mash), one has to be mindful of the relationship between step temps and the malt (analysis).
dontman
Well-Known Member
You could boil 10 gallons of collected wort down to 1 gallon and it would no effect on efficiency. The two are unrelated.
Efficiency is strictly about the percentage of possible fermentable sugars that you get out of a quantity of grain. In other words the number of GU's (Gravity Units) that you collect on your total grain bill. This number does not change regardless of final volume. Only concentration.
chefchris
Well-Known Member
I was pretty sure that if it called for a 5 gallon batch and only came up with 4, your efficiency would not be the same. I'm talking Brewhouse Efficiency here.
Kaiser
Well-Known Member
Boil-off does have some effect on efficiency. But it is an indirect one: The more you boil-off the more you can sparge while getting to the same post boil volume and gravity. But I don't recommend to increment the boil-off in order to bump up the efficiency.
Kai
Kai
Similar threads
