The fraud that has become decoction

[huckdavidson]

Decoction in and of itself is a useful process for stepping the temperature of a mash and getting peak extract from malt.

The decoction does not contribute to or add malty flavors to a beer. Adding more and various kinds of malt will do this (while also varying the IBUs). It may raise extract a couple points but not to the extent that would make a significant difference.

The decoction does not caramelize in the kettle. The kettle is boiling a mass that is not heated over boiling temperature. There is too much mass (more proteins than starches) and not enough heat.

The decoction does not form melanoidins in the kettle. Same as boiling, there's not enough heat and too much protein to effectively drive melanoidin formation. The pH is also too neutral. It would take a very alkaline pH and mash pH is only slightly acidic.

The change in color of the decoction when boiled is simply proteins coming out of solution.

People who do a decoction and claim a difference are simply justifying their work or trying to match an industrial process that they've been convinced (by media) makes a better beer.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Following with interest. Are you talking about just raising a thick portion to boil, then back in - a step-mash method only, or are you saying neither caramelization nor melanoidin development take place, even if under a prolonged thick portion boil?

 

[Red over White]

Check out Weinhenstephaner Helles in the can and Original Premium in a bottle for a good comparison of infusion vs decoction mashing. Same brewery, same ingredients, different mashing process, different results.

 

[huckdavidson]

Following with interest. Are you talking about just raising a thick portion to boil, then back in - a step-mash method only, or are you saying neither caramelization nor melanoidin development take place, even if under a prolonged thick portion boil?

Since all of the water is never evaporated from the decoction the liquid portion is always a solution that doesn't get over boiling temperatures even in an extended boil.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Really interesting article, collaboration between Horst Dornbusch and Thomas Kraus-Weyermann on exactly this issue. They used a low-IBU maibock as a test case, the only thing varied was an infusion v. decoction mash. No analytical comparisons, but on a sensory basis, they could tell very little difference.

Fascinating and eye-opening. Thanks for the thread, OP. I decocted a few times - ironically, the last time was in the late-90's, in -10F weather overnight outside on a farm we rented, harebrained idea to do a triple decoction Maibock, just as I was falling asleep; 2 or so a.m., couldn't figure out why I wasn't getting a clear vorlauf after considerable time until I figured out the lauter screen had become dislodged, so had to pull everything, reset the lauter, and continue on. My wife named it Hellandback Bock, play on helles bock. It turned out extraordinary.

Translated from the German (emphasis mine):

The sensory truth


Both beers are basically very similar. The minimal differences in the relevant aspects can perhaps only be perceived and put into words by sensory-trained tasters. Roughly generalized, the elaborate decoction Maibock appears a little more alcoholic and less full-bodied and sweet.

It is also a bit more hoppy, especially in the finish. What was interesting was the surprisingly unorthodox color rating: contrary to theory, most tasters could not detect any color difference between the two beers. When it came to foam formation, the tasters gave the infusion Maibock the nod, whereas there were only marginal differences in the bouquet. However, the infusion Maibock was able to achieve a clear plus in terms of initial taste and balance in the finish. It also performed slightly better in the areas of full-bodiedness and malt-hop balance.

What was particularly striking was that the decoction Maibock did not have a large amount of melanoidin-related, bread-like, caramel-sweet, toffee-like and malty-bitter aromas, which is one of the key arguments of the protagonists of mash cooking. The explanation probably lies in the fact that the targeted use of modern special malts of good quality in an infusion mash can produce the same or very similar sensory results as a decoction mash.

Of course, it is up to each brewer individually to decide whether the slight differences in taste between the two brewhouse processes are worth the extra effort in terms of personnel, time and energy. However, overall, the empirical-sensory experiment presented here allows us to conclude that the “necessity” argument for decoction is hardly compelling these days, even for classic German beers such as Maibock.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Since all of the water is never evaporated from the decoction the liquid portion is always a solution that doesn't get over boiling temperatures even in an extended boil.

Gotcha. Great, thanks.

 

[huckdavidson]

Check out Weinhenstephaner Helles in the can and Original Premium in a bottle for a good comparison of infusion vs decoction mashing. Same brewery, same ingredients, different mashing process, different results.

The stats are different on those beers, ABV, IBU which most likely affects tasting differences. Can't find malt listings or mash process for those beers on their website.

 

[Red over White]

The stats are different on those beers, ABV, IBU which most likely affects tasting differences. Can't find malt listings or mash process for those beers on their website.

This video covers a good bit about the differences from the Weinhenstephaner brewmaster himself.

 

[huckdavidson]

This video covers a good bit about the differences from the Weinhenstephaner brewmaster himself.

Increase in body and mouthfeel due to increased release of beta glucans and increased oxidative melanoidin development which also contribute to the increase in color is more accurate than the standard home brew talk of increased maltiness, kettle caramelization and heat related melanoidin development.

Do those things occur at a homebrew level and are they distinguishable? They should but maybe not to the extent of an industrial process.

https://brulosophy.com/2016/12/12/m...ction-vs-single-infusion-exbeeriment-results/
Narziss seemed to prefer the infusion mash beer.

The brewer said the same malt was used but is there more malt in the decocted recipe than the infusion?

Will have to find these beers to compare.

 

[Red over White]

Increase in body and mouthfeel due to increased release of beta glucans and increased oxidative melanoidin development which also contribute to the increase in color is more accurate than the standard home brew talk of kettle caramelization and heat related melanoidin development.

Do those things occur at a homebrew level and are they distinguishable? They should be but maybe not to the extent of an industrial process.

https://brulosophy.com/2016/12/12/m...ction-vs-single-infusion-exbeeriment-results/
Narziss seemed to prefer the infusion mash beer.

Will have to find these beers to compare.

The cans have date stamps on the bottom, the bottles have a code you will need to look up. Hopefully, you can find similar production dates to compare. Here on the east coast, it is almost the time of year that I wait for, to hoard European imports with dates that show that they were made, transported and warehoused in 100% cool weather from cradle to grave.

If you have the ability to brew the same lager back to back, infusion and decoction you will really be able to get a 100% fresh comparison. Even with just one decoction with my gear and otherwise identical process, the decoction beer always drops clear faster.

Full disclosure, I do my decoction first in the mashtun, chill with the balance of strike water, dough in a second time with the rest of the grist and then step mash for the least amount of oxygen uptake in the process and to get the most out of the decoction.

 

[Red over White]

Increase in body and mouthfeel due to increased release of beta glucans and increased oxidative melanoidin development which also contribute to the increase in color is more accurate than the standard home brew talk of increased maltiness, kettle caramelization and heat related melanoidin development.

Do those things occur at a homebrew level and are they distinguishable? They should but maybe not to the extent of an industrial process.

https://brulosophy.com/2016/12/12/m...ction-vs-single-infusion-exbeeriment-results/
Narziss seemed to prefer the infusion mash beer.

The brewer said the same malt was used but is there more malt in the decocted recipe than the infusion?

Will have to find these beers to compare.

I believe he states that the water to grist ratio is different between the two beers, which would explain the different ABV's.

 

[Bobby_M]

Since all of the water is never evaporated from the decoction the liquid portion is always a solution that doesn't get over boiling temperatures even in an extended boil.

The fact that sugar burns to the bottom of a decoction pot the moment you stop stirring is proof that SOME portion of the volume of the pot is getting hotter than boiling.

 

[VikeMan]

The fact that sugar burns to the bottom of a decoction pot the moment you stop stirring is proof that SOME portion of the volume of the pot is getting hotter than boiling.

Yep. We tend to oversimplify boiling wort (or a decoction) as being just like a kettle of water, which it's not.

 

[huckdavidson]

The fact that sugar burns to the bottom of a decoction pot the moment you stop stirring is proof that SOME portion of the volume of the pot is getting hotter than boiling.

I've never seen this happen, not even once. Perhaps the decoctions I've witnessed weren't thick enough? Though I've never seen a decoction over a burner only stove top, maybe that's the difference?

 

[huckdavidson]

Yep. We tend to oversimplify boiling wort (or a decoction) as being just like a kettle of water, which it's not.

What do you mean by that? What is the difference?

 

[AlexKay]

It's a degree of freedom for the brewer, to get a little more control of the wort properties. Like most (if not all) of the knobs we turn in wort production -- mash temperature, step mashes -- the actual effects tend to be pretty subtle, evident to instruments and often not to tasters. If you want a dramatic change, change the recipe, not the process.

And anyone who tells you that to make a real, authentic-tasting Verrucktebock, you need to do a quintuple decoction while jumping up and down on one leg ...

 

[AlexKay]

What do you mean by that? What is the difference?

The bulk of the water is at or very, very close to boiling temperature. The wall of the kettle is necessarily hotter, depending on the kettle material, the heating method, and any soiling. There's then a gradient between the wall and the bulk.

 

[Bassman2003]

I am going to try a decoction for the 1st time on a hefeweizen this week. I have designed it to be as easy as possible so I will not get hurt by doing it. It will be interesting to see what comes about. Just curious more than anything with nothing to prove.

Logic says something would be different in the finished beer with the extra process, but how much actually transfers is the real determinant.

Huck, just wondering why the fervent post about decoction? Have you done a lot of decoctions and found they are a waste of time?

 

[day_trippr]

The original post seems to hold plenty of clues

Cheers!

 

[huckdavidson]

The bulk of the water is at or very, very close to boiling temperature. The wall of the kettle is necessarily hotter, depending on the kettle material, the heating method, and any soiling. There's then a gradient between the wall and the bulk.

As long as there is water in solution, steam bubbles form next to the elements (or the hottest part of the pot) and then collapse. That's what makes the loud noise when coming to a boil (water, wort, decoction, etc...) and when at a boil the noise dies down.

The problem is with water present, a near neutral, slightly acidic, pH and not going over boiling temperatures there is no caramelization or burning. Heat related maillard reactions at that temperature and with that moisture content would be hard to come by.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

The bulk of the water is at or very, very close to boiling temperature. The wall of the kettle is necessarily hotter, depending on the kettle material, the heating method, and any soiling. There's then a gradient between the wall and the bulk.

To be honest I have wondered about localized heating. It reminds me of 3 Floyd's use of direct-fired v. steam-jacketed BK. My friend from Goose Island (Jim Cibak, now head brewer for Chicago's Revolution Brewing) was working for them at the time and I was very interested in that they were using a sort of wok-style burner. I do recall "something" different in the quality of the wort, vis-a-vis steam-jacketed worts. Don't know the malt bill and so perhaps it's about that. But the received wisdom was that sugar at the BK wall-wort interface, in particular with the direct fire, got a deeper caramelization.

In terms of burning, yes, I tanked my 1st two brews (drawn from Greg Noonan's original book) with decoctions. I'm thinking of thick oatmeal. It, too, can easily scorch. Or tomato sauce, even with water content.

 

[sibelman]

Conventional wisdom says water only gets hotter than its boiling point when it's already steam. But with some pressure, that's no longer accurate. Especially in a large decoction one imagines that the lower part of the mixture could be under considerable pressure. Grains, sugars, starches in contact with hot steel may well exceed boiling point, though they're also "cooled" by the merely hot water molecules nearby. Even in a small pot, localized temps likely exceed the boiling point, even without charring. But hot enough to caramelize? Hmmm...

For me, though, this is all a thought problem. OP (and others) have actual experience. Sounds like a exBeeriment could also help.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Conventional wisdom says water only gets hotter than its boiling point when it's already steam. But with some pressure, that's no longer accurate. Especially in a large decoction one imagines that the lower part of the mixture could be under considerable pressure. Grains, sugars, starches in contact with hot steel may well exceed boiling point, though they're also "cooled" by the merely hot water molecules nearby. Even in a small pot, localized temps likely exceed the boiling point, even without charring. But hot enough to caramelize? Hmmm...

For me, though, this is all a thought problem. OP (and others) have actual experience. Sounds like a exBeeriment could also help.

OP definitely spurred some serious investigation, and I'm really impressed with the sensory work in agreement with the OP. It would be great to see some lab analysis.

 

[sibelman]

One thing seems indisputable: decoction is a substantial PITA. OP's bold claim that recipe matters more than this process option seems... not so bold, all things considered.

I observe that HBT brewers of German lagers often seem to be engaged in a near-Quixotic quest for "that German flavor." It's certainly understandable that would lead to efforts to replicate the traditional process in search of the traditional product. But I appreciate @huckdavidson's strongly worded challenge to the conventional wisdom.

 

[MaxStout]

It's good to challenge the norms, and it's a healthy thing for someone like the OP to stir the pot (pun intended).

The question is: with today's well-modified malts and the availability of melanoidin malts to add, do we really need to do a decoction?

I've never done one, and have brewed many continental lagers single-infusion. They turned out well. Would they have been better with a decoction? No idea.

I see many recipes calling for decoctions, so it's not exactly unpopular. But is it grounded in good science, or is it something brewers do because of "tradition," or to appear authentic?

Many points of brewing conventional wisdom have been debunked, like secondaries, etc. Will decoction fall into that some day?

Brulosophy did an exbeeriment with decoction vs infusion, and the results were inconclusive.

https://brulosophy.com/2016/12/12/m...ction-vs-single-infusion-exbeeriment-results/
More investigation needs to be done.

 

[huckdavidson]

Huck, just wondering why the fervent post about decoction? Have you done a lot of decoctions and found they are a waste of time?

To subjugate the mislead and overhyped descriptions (see OP) of decocted beers to scrutiny and yes I have decocted many grists (stovetop) and just don't see the benefit at the homebrew level. I've tried very dry decoctions and wetter decoctions, longer boils and shorter boils and varying the size of the decoctions. I've never had a grist or sugar burn during the decoction or had any sugars or proteins burn onto the pot.

Does that relevance change with industrial steam jacketed equipment... mostly likely not - the decoction will give attributes similar to that described by the Weihenstanpher brewer above.

The Weihenstephaner brewer in the video above gave the best description of a possible benefit of decoction (see my comments above). It doesn't include the standard homebrew descriptions of caramel or melanoidin or malty. It's simply more mouthfeel and body due to additional beta glucan content (grainy) with some oxidative effects.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Personally really keyed you brought this forward. Haven't had a chance to watch the video but will set some aside to do it.

 

[Red over White]

When I do a decoction it's almost always my house Helles that I always have on tap. There is a definite change in flavor, more mouthfeel, whipped cream foam in glass and it drops brite quickly in the keg. All in it adds 45-60 minutes to my brew day, which for this old guy isn't an issue. Can the above attributes be had other ways, likely all but the taste as it's unique and I have not had a malt that gives that exact flavor. Is the added time worth it, only if you enjoy the flavor, because absolutely wonderful beer can be made without a decoction.

 

[Bassman2003]

To subjugate the mislead and overhyped descriptions (see OP) of decocted beers to scrutiny and yes I have decocted many grists (stovetop) and just don't see the benefit at the homebrew level. I've tried very dry decoctions and wetter decoctions, longer boils and shorter boils and varying the size of the decoctions. I've never had a grist or sugar burn during the decoction or had any sugars or proteins burn onto the pot.

Does that relevance change with industrial steam jacketed equipment... mostly likely not - the decoction will give attributes similar to that described by the Weihenstanpher brewer above.

The Weihenstephaner brewer in the video above gave the best description of a possible benefit of decoction (see my comments above). It doesn't include the standard homebrew descriptions of caramel or melanoidin or malty. It's simply more mouthfeel and body due to additional beta glucan content (grainy) with some oxidative effects.

Thanks. Good to hear your experiences. I will keep a skeptical eye out for bias as I evaluate the process. I plan on brewing a hefeweizen and helles with a single decoction. If it yields the same benefits as Red over White finds, it will be a win for me too. The great thing about it is one can skip it if the process is too involved or does not bring improvements.

 

[ba-brewer]

Read this article yesterday before seeing the OP post, sort of fits into the discussion.
RIMS versus Decoction | MoreBeer

Never did a decoction but it is on the list of things to try.

 

[huckdavidson]

Thanks. Good to hear your experiences. I will keep a skeptical eye out for bias as I evaluate the process. I plan on brewing a hefeweizen and helles with a single decoction. If it yields the same benefits as Red over White finds, it will be a win for me too. The great thing about it is one can skip it if the process is too involved or does not bring improvements.

It's very difficult, nigh on impossible, to judge your own beer. I've posed the question before. If you happen to make a caramelly, malty, melanoiden laden masterpiece using only base malt, I'll be somewhat suspicious.

 

[huckdavidson]

This is a video of the MaltMiller hosting the Budvar brewmaster and performing a decoction with a Grainfather G40. Listen carefully to what he says about oxidizing the wort and the effects of the decoction.

https://www.themaltmiller.co.uk/product/brew-with-us-budvar-czech-lager/?v=e892e780304d

 

[Bassman2003]

Great video and thanks for posting. What I understood is - the brewmaster was speaking of evening out the different shipments of malt by a controlled amount of oxidizing for any lighter groups. They put the mash with a lighter color in the decoction kettle early and basically agitate to darken before performing the decoction. If they do not want to oxidize, they underlet into the decoction kettle. I think they are very aware of oxidation and try to control it in the brewery.

 

[Bassman2003]

Follow up - no doubt decoction adds some oxidation. As a low oxygen brewer, I am trying sort of the same sort of approach - controlled oxidation. As the head brewer at Weihenstephan was quoted once - "oxygen is flavor". My interest is if decoction will add a certain oxidative flavor that is different from oxidizing an entire mash or batch. It will be a fun learning process as homebrewing always is.

 

[JAReeves]

Allow me to approach this from a food science perspective, since that used to be my job. I am not trying to instigate a flame-war here, just clarify the science behind the chemical changes.

1. Heating starches, sugars, and proteins with a decent amount of water in the bottom of the pan will not cause significant color/flavor change, unless it's high heat and/or over time; which will also cause evaporation of said water into steam (also taking some lighter-weight flavors with it). All of us have seen this in the boil kettle; long boils intensify color, sugar and flavor in our wort. A lot of water would actually inhibit the color/flavor change, and barring a select few in this forum, I should be able to say with every confidence, we have all seen this as well (or why your pasta doesn't change color when boiled).

2. Sugars caramelize differently than proteins, but both will darken in color and change flavor according to what they are.

3. When the moisture content is low and the heat is high or over a long period of time, then you will see color and flavor changes.

4. If #3 was not correct, we would never burn anything. Having had to boil the burnt sugar off the bottom of a pot when I failed to make caramel properly for my boss, I can attest that time and temp make all the difference in cooking sugars; and if anyone has ever burned a protein in a pan, it's the same concept (but it's a different chemical reaction and a different name).

 

[JAReeves]

If any of you want the more scientific version of what I described, here you go:
https://www.amazon.com/Food-Cooking...091&sprefix=mcgee+food+science,aps,146&sr=8-1

 

[gunhaus]

It's very difficult, nigh on impossible, to judge your own beer. I've posed the question before. If you happen to make a caramelly, malty, melanoiden laden masterpiece using only base malt, I'll be somewhat suspicious.

The ONLY person that is required for judging my beer is ME> I brew beer to drink not to please some judge somewhere I never met. If there is no flavor benefit from decoction, then WHY do we have to add malts as you suggested to GET the flavors of a decocted beer?

I brew two beers with some frequency and have for a number of years - because each has its fans in my circle and because I like both of the and always find them a fun conversation piece with both other brewers and the uninitiated alike. THese are both simply 11 pounds of Pilsner, lager yeast. One is brewed with American hops, one is brewed with noble hops. The "American" versions gets a 90 min mash, and 90 min boil. The "Euro" version is a triple decoction. I vary the yeast at times, and I vary the hops at times often based on what is on hand at the time, but I always brew both together and with the same yeast at the same time.

Aside from differences you are going to get with different hops flavors - there is a marked difference in body, mouth feel, and flavor between the two. If there was NOTHING happening with a decoction where does it come from? And believe me I would not waste my time if it WAS NOT there. I am fairly sure the mouthfeel, and body differences did not come from those hop changes and I am really sure the flavor differences that are usually noted did not. The difference between these beers has always been so noticeable that people have a really hard time accepting that they are essentially the same beer. Bear in mind the hop additions are ALL bittering no flavor or aroma additions and about 35 IBU in both cases. So they are very close beers that virtually everyone who has tried them has picked as NOTABLY different beers. None of that really matters - I personally like both beers so I make them. I personally enjoy time spent brewing, and I am rarely ever in a hurry to rush through the brew day, Decoctions offer a pleasant extra to the day when I am only brewing a single beer - or makes a nice extra step if I am brewing with buddies. Something for everyone to do and try.

Now i do not have to drink your beers. And I do not have to participate in your brew sessions. I cannot speak for the time you have to/ want to spend on beer. If you do not want to spend extra time on more steps that hurts me not. You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe when it comes to what makes your beer tasty to you. BUT when you rationalize your choice by flippantly dismissing the process, AND backhandedly denigrate and dismiss ANYONE who chooses to use that process as ignorant and misinformed, as you do on the closing of your OP - I do take offense at that. The argument over the practice is quite valid and interesting. It was not/ is not necessary to attempt to validate your point by accusing those who don't share it of ignorance and rationalization themselves.

 

[Miraculix]

Glycoproteins. Everybody talks about caramelization and Maillard reaction but the main thing happening at higher temperatures here that does have a huge impact on the beer is imo the formation of glycoproteins. They impact foam stability and mouth feel in a positive way.

I'm witnessing the impact when doing a hochkurz mash with mashout Vs a 65c single rest mash every time. I wouldn't be surprised if more temperature equals more glycoproteins.

 

[huckdavidson]

The ONLY person that is required for judging my beer is ME> I brew beer to drink not to please some judge somewhere I never met. If there is no flavor benefit from decoction, then WHY do we have to add malts as you suggested to GET the flavors of a decocted beer?

I brew two beers with some frequency and have for a number of years - because each has its fans in my circle and because I like both of the and always find them a fun conversation piece with both other brewers and the uninitiated alike. THese are both simply 11 pounds of Pilsner, lager yeast. One is brewed with American hops, one is brewed with noble hops. The "American" versions gets a 90 min mash, and 90 min boil. The "Euro" version is a triple decoction. I vary the yeast at times, and I vary the hops at times often based on what is on hand at the time, but I always brew both together and with the same yeast at the same time.

Aside from differences you are going to get with different hops flavors - there is a marked difference in body, mouth feel, and flavor between the two. If there was NOTHING happening with a decoction where does it come from? And believe me I would not waste my time if it WAS NOT there. I am fairly sure the mouthfeel, and body differences did not come from those hop changes and I am really sure the flavor differences that are usually noted did not. The difference between these beers has always been so noticeable that people have a really hard time accepting that they are essentially the same beer. Bear in mind the hop additions are ALL bittering no flavor or aroma additions and about 35 IBU in both cases. So they are very close beers that virtually everyone who has tried them has picked as NOTABLY different beers. None of that really matters - I personally like both beers so I make them. I personally enjoy time spent brewing, and I am rarely ever in a hurry to rush through the brew day, Decoctions offer a pleasant extra to the day when I am only brewing a single beer - or makes a nice extra step if I am brewing with buddies. Something for everyone to do and try.

Now i do not have to drink your beers. And I do not have to participate in your brew sessions. I cannot speak for the time you have to/ want to spend on beer. If you do not want to spend extra time on more steps that hurts me not. You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe when it comes to what makes your beer tasty to you. BUT when you rationalize your choice by flippantly dismissing the process, AND backhandedly denigrate and dismiss ANYONE who chooses to use that process as ignorant and misinformed, as you do on the closing of your OP - I do take offense at that. The argument over the practice is quite valid and interesting. It was not/ is not necessary to attempt to validate your point by accusing those who don't share it of ignorance and rationalization themselves.

The general gist of that comment and the OP is:

A.) Decoction does *NOT*:

1.) Add caramel flavors to a beer (add caramel malts to do this)
2.) Add heat related melandoins to a beer (boil down a portion of first runnings to do this)
3.) Increase malt flavors (add more malt to your recipe do this)

B.) Decoction does:

1.) Increase foam and head retention via glycoproteins
2.) Increase body and mouthfeel via beta glucans and glycoproteins
3.) Increase oxidative melanoidin reactions

These are taken from the brew masters at Budvar, Weihenstephan, Sierra Nevada, Samuel Adams.

Escaping our own biases is impossible and that's exactly where those myths in letter A come from. So in essence I was teasing @Bassman about tasting his own beer, though I don't think he took it as seriously as @gunhaus.

If the decoction is burning on your pot there isn't enough liquid and you're just contributing burnt flavors to your beer.

Industrial processes that pump decoctions out of the mash tun require a certain amount of liquid in the decoction to pump back and forth (between kettle and mash tun). Observe in the video above the thickness (thinness?) of the decoctions at Budvar.

 

[Miraculix]

The points listed under b are pretty solid reasons in my world to still do a decoction to be honest.

Actually, I might do one next time I brew, never did one. I was always wondering how the brewer managed to get the Czech beer I've had in Prague to get so massively foamy, stable foam, without much carbonation. That was awesome. I think I might have the answer now!