first pilsner - decoction questions.

[TrannyRock]

Today, hopefully, I will brew my first pilsner, having already acquired my ingredients from LHBS. A couple questions:

1) I got as simple of a grain bill as I could bear: for a 5.5 gal batch, 11# Weyermann "regular" Pils malt, 0.5# CaraHell. I had hoped for the floor-malted Bohemian stuff but no dice. My notion was to do a single decoction schedule, starting with a brief protein rest, 132o, then decocting up to saccharification at 154o or so. I have the basic 10gal cooler/false bottom setup - my system has been to use a single infusion, then drain after saccharification and batch sparge twice with 168o water. Am I going to wreck my head retention by using a protein rest on Weyermann pils malt? I feel the need to do a decoction to get the characteristic profile, since I got a simple, melanoidin-light grain bill.

2) I thought I had decoction mashed in the past, when undershooting my mash temp, by simply pulling some volume of liquor through my false bottom and boiling that on the stove. I'm getting the impression that this was incorrect, and that I am actually supposed to be scooping out a mixture of grist and liquor, which apparently then I would need to stir constantly. Please advise.

 

[brewing_clown]

I recommend viewing BrauKaiser's decoction videos on YouTube. There are three of them, and they are awesome.

 

[robfar]

First rest should be around 142 then decoct to 156 or so. A Hockhurz schedule.

+1 on the Braukieser vids.

 

[TrannyRock]

Thanks, the Braukaiser videos greatly improved my understanding.

My fear of going from 142 to 156 (instead of, say, 132 to saccharification) is that I may not be decocting enough volume to impact the flavor of the beer - nonetheless I will try that route and hope that the finished beer isn't too boring.

 

[stpug]

Add in a decoction to mash out temps and you'll increase the melanoidin reactions. You could also boil the decoction for 30 minutes to increase those reactions.

 

[Denny]

Add in a decoction to mash out temps and you'll increase the melanoidin reactions. You could also boil the decoction for 30 minutes to increase those reactions.

Keep in mind that melanoidins are colors, not flavors. I think you're talking about Maillard reactions.

Don't expect a decoctoin mash to make a noticeable difference in your beer. Do it because you want to, not because you believe it will make better beer.

 

[ajdelange]

Why would anyone want to if it didn't make better beer?

The decoctions definitely change the flavor. More Maillard/caramel products from the extra 'cooking'.

 

[Denny]

Why would anyone want to if it didn't make better beer?

The decoctions definitely change the flavor. More Maillard/caramel products from the extra 'cooking'.

According to a study I did and presented at NHC in 2008, the number of tasters who preferred a non decocted beer and those who had no preference outnumbered those who preferred the decocted beer. The tasters were experienced homebrewers, BJCP judges and commercial berwers. I find that most people who think decoction makes a difference are those who haven't done a blind triangle tasting, much like you find that those who think 5.2 works are those who haven't actually checked the pH.

 

[stpug]

Keep in mind that melanoidins are colors, not flavors. I think you're talking about Maillard reactions.

You're correct. Maillard is what was meant. That's what I get for posting from my "throne"

Don't expect a decoctoin mash to make a noticeable difference in your beer. Do it because you want to, not because you believe it will make better beer.

I don't agree that there is no noticeable difference in the resulting beers. I have done a few and have definitely noticed a different. My first czech pilsner included a decoction, while my second did not (same grainbill and hops). The first was much more "characterful" than the second.

My recent traditional bock on the other hand royally screwed the pooch from the decoction schedule...... but we're gonna let that one lager out

 

[Denny]

I don't agree that there is no noticeable difference in the resulting beers. I have done a few and have definitely noticed a different. My first czech pilsner included a decoction, while my second did not (same grainbill and hops). The first was much more "characterful" than the second.

My recent traditional bock on the other hand royally screwed the pooch from the decoction schedule...... but we're gonna let that one lager out

As I said to AJ, most of the people who think decoction makes a difference haven't done an objective comparison. Make exactly the same beer (same grain and hops bags, exact same yeast and amount, same fermentation schedule) both as a decoction and as a single infusion. Then pour 2 samples of one and one of the other. Do blind tasting and pick out the one that's different. Have several others do the same. Then tell me what you find.

 

[ajdelange]

According to a study I did and presented at NHC in 2008, the number of tasters who preferred a non decocted beer and those who had no preference outnumbered those who preferred the decocted beer. The tasters were experienced homebrewers, BJCP judges and commercial berwers. I find that most people who think decoction makes a difference are those who haven't done a blind triangle tasting, much like you find that those who think 5.2 works are those who haven't actually checked the pH.

Then let me rephrase that:

Why would anyone want to if he thought it didn't make better beer?

 

[stpug]

As I said to AJ, most of the people who think decoction makes a difference haven't done an objective comparison. Make exactly the same beer (same grain and hops bags, exact same yeast and amount, same fermentation schedule) both as a decoction and as a single infusion. Then pour 2 samples of one and one of the other. Do blind tasting and pick out the one that's different. Have several others do the same. Then tell me what you find.

I fully understand what you are saying, and cannot provide you any experiment or triangle tasting results, but my brain knows which it thought was better based on how my taste buds sensed the beers. When I do another czech pilsner, I will perform either a single or double decoction because that was the better of the two beers. When I do another bock, I will NOT

 

[Denny]

Then let me rephrase that:

Why would anyone want to if he thought it didn't make better beer?

To partake of the process, the tradition. Believe it or not, I know people like that.

 

[Flyboy84]

Today, hopefully, I will brew my first pilsner, having already acquired my ingredients from LHBS. A couple questions:

1) I got as simple of a grain bill as I could bear: for a 5.5 gal batch, 11# Weyermann "regular" Pils malt, 0.5# CaraHell. I had hoped for the floor-malted Bohemian stuff but no dice. My notion was to do a single decoction schedule, starting with a brief protein rest, 132o, then decocting up to saccharification at 154o or so. I have the basic 10gal cooler/false bottom setup - my system has been to use a single infusion, then drain after saccharification and batch sparge twice with 168o water. Am I going to wreck my head retention by using a protein rest on Weyermann pils malt? I feel the need to do a decoction to get the characteristic profile, since I got a simple, melanoidin-light grain bill.

2) I thought I had decoction mashed in the past, when undershooting my mash temp, by simply pulling some volume of liquor through my false bottom and boiling that on the stove. I'm getting the impression that this was incorrect, and that I am actually supposed to be scooping out a mixture of grist and liquor, which apparently then I would need to stir constantly. Please advise.

I did my first decoction brew last Dec and I am never doing anything else again. Don't be scared, it's really not that much harder and the beer it makes is phenomenal. I made an oktoberfest in Jan and the complexity of malts and caramel flavors is noticeably better than my previous version even after only a month.

Someone earlier had mentioned Brewkiaser's decoction videos, I watched those probably five times taking notes before my first run as well as this video here:
http://brewingtv.com/episodes/2011/3/29/brewing-tv-episode-34-decoction-day.html

Another site that was invaluable was this:
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Decoction_Mashing

Just looking at your grain bill, you may also want to look into an acid rest of at least 30 min @ 90 F. The lighter kilned grains need to steep at the low temp for a while to reduce the PH before they can be boiled otherwise you may extract tannins with the starches and sugars.

 

[Malt]

Maillard Reactions occur staring at around 230F depending on the type of sugars and amino acids present.

Boiling occurs at 212F, thus if you have a very thin decoction you won't develop those melanoidins via Maillard Reactions.

You might be able to boil down a decoction enough to get the Maillard Reactions started (At that point you might as well boil down some first runnings).

Think of Vienna and Munich malt when you think of Melanoidins. The kilning process gets hot enough to start Maillard Reactions and produce the Melanoidins.

Here's an image that might help explain:

As far as your questions:

1.) There should be no reason that a decoction would hurt your head retention, as long as you're not in a protein rest for 5 hours.
2.) You'll need to scoop out mostly grist with little wort (The thickest portion of the mash). Leave the thin wort behind. You will need to stir constantly to avoid scorching, clumping and to promote even distribution of heat throughout.

 

[Denny]

I fully understand what you are saying, and cannot provide you any experiment or triangle tasting results, but my brain knows which it thought was better based on how my taste buds sensed the beers. When I do another czech pilsner, I will perform either a single or double decoction because that was the better of the two beers. When I do another bock, I will NOT

With all due respect, f you don't do the blind triangle, then you're just guessing. I can show you example after example of preconception leading perception. I wrote an entire chapter about it in "Experimental Homebrewing".

 

[stpug]

With all due respect, f you don't do the blind triangle, then you're just guessing. I can show you example after example of preconception leading perception. I wrote an entire chapter about it in "Experimental Homebrewing".

I am just guessing, I suppose. I put something in my mouth, my brain determines what it can about that thing, and I form an opinion <-- that's a "guess" I suppose. Then again, that's what we all do. It doesn't matter how many cups I have sitting in front of me, or if some are the same and some are different.

I did the decoction simply to prove what I had already seen you write about. I took your words for granted that decoctions do not contribute to the overall characteristic of a beer with fully modified malts, especially when weighted against the time involved. I fully expected this result, thus it was my preconception: Decoctions are not significantly "enhancing" to a beers character. Unfortunately, what I found out from my own experience is that they DO make a significant difference to me, even when using highly modified malts (Avangard Pilsner), and it sucks because it makes the brewday that much more complex .

 

[Gentlemans_Ale]

To partake of the process, the tradition. Believe it or not, I know people like that.

I doubt Pilsner Urquell would still be wasting their time after 173 years if it didn't add to the quality

 

[dfhar]

Whether or not you do a decoction mash, with a grain bill of only pilsner malt and a little carapils you should really pay close attention to your water and mash pH. Using about 2-3% acidulated malt in place of some of the pilsner malt is a good idea, even if you have very low alkalinity water. And if you don't have low alkalinity water, use distilled with enough CaSO4 + CaCl2 to get you 50ppm of Ca.

 

[Malt]

According to a study I did and presented at NHC in 2008, the number of tasters who preferred a non decocted beer and those who had no preference outnumbered those who preferred the decocted beer. The tasters were experienced homebrewers, BJCP judges and commercial berwers. I find that most people who think decoction makes a difference are those who haven't done a blind triangle tasting, much like you find that those who think 5.2 works are those who haven't actually checked the pH.

Denny, were the malts used in your decoction tasting well-modified or under-modified? In order for the decoction mash to produce Melanoidin products aren't the proteins and amino acids present in the under-modified malts necessary? My understanding is that using well-modified malts won't necessarily have the same degree of effect as under-modified malts due to the lower protein and amino acid content.

Even modern malts labeled as under-modified (Briess under-modified Pilsen, Weyermann Floor Malted Pilsen) are still well-modified compared to malts of yesteryear. Is a new study warranted using purposefully under-modified home-malt and well-modified modern malt? Or perhaps use well-modified malts and include Chit Malt for the needed protein?

What malt is Pilsner-Urquell made from?

(Not being smug or accusatory, a genuine question/observation.)

 

[wobdee]

Do a little research on the "Schmitz Process" its a simple single decoction method that doesn't add much more time to your brew day. I've been toying with this process for awhile now and its producing great lagers for me.

IMHO decoction does make a difference for the good in my lagers. recent competitions and my brew club members have proved it to me.

 

[ajdelange]

To partake of the process, the tradition. Believe it or not, I know people like that.

I do believe it because I am one of those people.

With all due respect, if you don't do the blind triangle, then you're just guessing.

Well you aren't guessing, you are using information other than that which comes through your nose and tastebuds (while 'blind' does not refer to not being able to see the beer in a properly conducted test the samples are presented in opaque cups unless, of course, the brewery is trying to see if the panel perceives color differences). Let's not forget the placebo effect. If you think a sugar pill has the power to cure you it will, in many cases, cure you. If you think a decocted beer tastes better then it will.

With respect to Denny's experiment, about which I know nothing, but assuming that it was conducted properly (reasonable confidence levels etc.) then we must recognize that it does not prove that decocted beers are not preferred to similar beers brewed in another way. It proves that the set of beers he tested were not preferred by the groups he empaneled. If I did a similar experiment and came up with the same result and PU did a similar experiment and came up with the same result and Gordon Biersch did the same experiment with similar result and.... then we could conclude that decoction mashing doesn't produce better beers.

If you are a commercial brewery and your (very carefully) chosen taste panel which has been demonstrated to reflect you customer base cannot, in a double blind test, tell the difference or express a preference for a decocted version of a beer in your portfolio as against the same beer made another way you are wasting a lot of energy and labor using decoction mashing.

 

[Malt]

With respect to Denny's experiment, about which I know nothing

Read about it here (pages 25-28):

http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf

 

[wobdee]

There are other experiments out there that have differing results than Denny's. I suggest everyone try a decoction and decide for yourself which you prefer. There are many different ways to brew and none are the wrong way.

 

[ajdelange]

Read about it here (pages 25-28):

http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf

You sure that's the experiment he is referencing? What's described there is not a triangle test.

 

[Malt]

You sure that's the experiment he is referencing? What's described there is not a triangle test.

Denny would know for sure, he also set this one up:

http://hbd.org/cascade/decoction/
http://hbd.org/discus/messages/26895/29913.html?1114193935

Apparently the results were published in Zymurgy.

 

[ajdelange]

Those links don't describe a triangle test either.

In a triangle test panelists are presented with three cups in random order. Each set contains (assignment again random) two cups of beer A and one of beer B or two of B and one of A. The panelists' first task is to declare which one of the three is different from the other two. He is then asked to express a preference for the outlier or the other two (or say whether it is sweeter, saltier, maltier - whatever is being tested for). At the end of the tests the scores are tallied and the probability that the obtained data were obtained solely by coin flipping is calculated. If the probability so obtained is small it is concluded that there is a statistically significant preference for one beer or the other. 'Double blind' means that neither the panelist nor the person presenting the samples nor the experimenter knows which beer is in which cups. For example, if the panel has 8 members and 3 correctly identify the odd beer and prefer one beer or the other the probability of that happening with no skill employed other than coin flipping would be 26% and we wouldn't want to make the assertion that beer A was preferable to beer B. If, OTOH, 5 people correctly identify and prefer one of the beers the probability that that could happen by coin flipping is only 0.009% and so we say that one beer is preferred to 1% confidence.

I always find it advisable to remember that in a triangle test you aren't testing beer - you are testing tasters.

 

[Malt]

Those links don't describe a triangle test either.

According to a study I did and presented at NHC in 2008... a blind triangle tasting...

I believe the first set of links is the one Denny is referring too (Even though they may or may not describe a blind triangle tasting, you'll have to take that up with Denny).

 

[Denny]

There are other experiments out there that have differing results than Denny's. I suggest everyone try a decoction and decide for yourself which you prefer. There are many different ways to brew and none are the wrong way.

I completely agree. Just be careful how you evaluate it.

 

[ajdelange]

Could you give us a link to the double blind triangle results?

 

[aStoutObserver]

Did anything get settled on here? I am going to be doing my first lager soon and am very interested in what some of the smarter minds on here have to say on this still. I may just have to do an infusion and decoction with the same recipe and decide for myself.

 

[stpug]

Did anything get settled on here? I am going to be doing my first lager soon and am very interested in what some of the smarter minds on here have to say on this still. I may just have to do an infusion and decoction with the same recipe and decide for myself.

Yes. Denny is wrong, and everyone else is right. Decoctions make a difference for the better (unless you f*ck it up, then it's for the worse ).

But you should do both for yourself and decide for yourself. That's the only way you'll ever really know if it makes a difference to you.

 

[ajdelange]

Well he was right in the sense that the only way to tell is by the double blind triangle test but he is wrong if he concludes that decoctions do not produce better beer than other means based on the tests that were linked to in this thread because those tests were not triangle tests.