Brewing Classic Styles issues...

[Airborneguy]

Airborneguy, This is the 6 gallon triple decocted house pale ale I love: 10# pale ale, .75# crystal 40*L, .5# munich.

I think I'm going to try this soon. I've never tried decoction on an Ale.

 

[WortMonger]

I think you will be very happy with the results. I'm even thinking that with no crystal, but maybe some biscuit or victory, and a wort caramelizing step with your first runnings it would be great. That is going to be my next experiment with this house recipe. Hell, I might even try just pale ale malt for a very simplistic ingredient beer, but with all that extra process for flavors.

 

[McCheese352]

That is what I'm saying, 100%. And I don't mean a "good" example, I mean any example at all.

What is the use of a "style" if it isn't a standard? In this case, the words are interchangeable by my understanding. I enjoy any beer for what it is, but call it what it is. If styles are to mean anything, you can't mess with them too much without being out of style. In the case of traditional, historic beers, I feel the leeway is narrowed even more. Does Dogfish Head call Midas Touch a pale ale? Does New Belgium call Fat Tire by any style? I'm not calling these beers bad, that's the part you are misunderstanding. I'm just saying they they aren't what the name says they are.

Think about it. If I boiled lasagna pasta and tossed it with some gravy, could I reasonably call it spaghetti? Point being, one can only go so far before they are making something different.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding you, rather I'm disagreeing with you. And I'm ok with that.

 

[Airborneguy]

No problem, at least we can discuss now knowing what the other is thinking.



I was pretty sure when I posted this that knocking such a popular book was not going to be, well, popular.

Let me ask you this: How far can one go before the beer is out of style?

 

[BrewKnurd]

I heard an interesting interview with Denny Conn on the brewing network where he did a test with a number of tasters and various beer styles, where he had people brew the exact same recipes with and without decoction. The tasters consisted of homebrewers, BJCP judges, and commercial brewers.

Results:
Which is maltier:
Decocted - 20, Non-Decocted, 16
More body:
Decocted - 17, Non-Decocted - 22
Which one do you think was the decocted beer?
Decocted - 16, Non-Decocted 18
Which did you prefer?
Decoted - 20, Non-Decocted 17

The numbers don't add up because there was also a "no preference" option, apparently.

So anyways, I have never decocted, and who knows if I ever will, although I'll probably give it a crack just cuz i can. But the results above make me question how huge of a difference it makes, particularly given that the non-decocted beer won the "which is decocted" vote. I am not trying to downplay anyone's perceptions that there's an unistakable difference between decoction and non-decoction... but I am certainly curious as to how much the preconception that "well its decocted, so of course it will taste different" plays into the perception that "this tastes different!"

Oh, and in regards to the statement that anyone that doesn't see a difference hasn't done one, Jamil was one of the brewers in the study above, so he has definitely done decoction, and doesn't see the difference. Not that what Jamil thinks has to matter to anyone, just to say that people do exist who have done it and said it didn't make a difference.

Anyways, I encourage everyone to do whatever they want with their beer.

 

[McCheese352]

No problem, at least we can discuss now knowing what the other is thinking.



I was pretty sure when I posted this that knocking such a popular book was not going to be, well, popular.

Let me ask you this: How far can one go before the beer is out of style?

I think out of style is out of style. If a beer doesn't reasonably fit within SRM/IBU/ABV etc its out of style. Taking Dopplebock as an example, BJCP has Paulaner Salvator as the first commercial example that exemplifies the style. So what would an "accurate" recipe for a dopplebock be? Lets say Pils/Vienna/Munich and a triple decoction creates a beautiful example of a dopplebock and closely mimics the characteristics found in Salvator (I dont actually know off the top of my head). But if instead I use some combination of 2-Row/Crystal/Melanoidin and a single infusion mash, but can just as closely mimic the profile of Salvator, in my opinion that's within style.

Having said that there's some parts of the equation that probably aren't as open to artistic license. Take the same example above and add a huge late addition of a C-hop and its probably going to fall out of style. Sub out a clean German lager yeast for a Belgian ale yeast, again, probably going to fall out of style because it doesn't fall within the profile of the style -flavours/smells/SRM/IBU etc.

 

[Airborneguy]

I see your point. Maybe I just placed too much emphasis on the "authority" that Jamil wields with his books, and considered someone who might read those recipes and take them as the "right" way to brew a particular style.

BTW, my point wasn't so much to argue decoction as a method. I mentioned it to highlight the reason I believe subbing certain malts to replace it will leave the beer lacking.

 

[kornbread]

It seems to me that if you can create a beer that meets the bjcp style guidelines for Aroma, Appearance, flavor, mouth feel and overall impression then, it should score well in competition regardless of what ingredients/process you use to create the beer.

Once it's in the glass, the judges have no idea weather you decocted or used some specialty malts to achieve a similar flavor.

In JZ's defense, I have a friend with a wall full of ribbons and medals from competitions. He told me that most of the beers that won came straight out of Brewing Classic Styles.

 

[Airborneguy]

I heard an interesting interview with Denny Conn on the brewing network...

Do you have a link to this? I'd like to read it. Don't tell me you remembered those numbers off of the top of your head.

 

[WortMonger]

Brewstrong did a decoction interview with Denny. Date was 6/29/09. I'm listening right now to see if that is the one.

Edit: Yep, that's the one!

 

[BrewKnurd]

Do you have a link to this? I'd like to read it. Don't tell me you remembered those numbers off of the top of your head.

You're darn right I didn't! Hell, if i hadn't listened to it within the past couple weeks, I might not have remembered that the episode existed.

I don't have a link to a written version, just the audio:
The Brewing Network.com - :

The part about the side by side comparisons start around the 30 minute point.

 

[Darwin18]

I don't know, but I have been using BCS for my last few brews and I've been very happy with the results. From BCS, I've brewed the Witbeer (HM), Kolsch (1st), Amber (2nd), Vienna, and Bock. I just entered the Vienna and Bock into competition so we'll see how those go.

The competitions are BJCP so that's what you're restricted to. I think this is a great book but your skill as a brewer is what stands out. I've made a few terrible beer from BCS when I didn't have my techniques or yeast handling down. I know it's cliche, but the beer is much more influenced by the brewer than the recipe.

That said, you should give "Designing Great Beers" by Ray Daniels a shot. It's a good book and can help you to develop your own recipes. If you're interested in making your own recipes, then it would be perfect for you. My take is that a lot of the brewing books that are out there are really targeting folks who are new to the hobby and don't have much value for me. "Designing Great Beers" is not one of those books.

 

[Airborneguy]

I read Designing Great Beers years ago, which I think is part of the problem. Like I said in my first post, I think part of the problem is that BCS is a beginner's/reference book and I was looking too much into it.

 

[NordeastBrewer77]

I read Designing Great Beers years ago, which I think is part of the problem. Like I said in my first post, I think part of the problem is that BCS is a beginner's/reference book and I was looking too much into it.

i think you just nailed it Airborne. BCS is a book of extract recipes. i think it's like that so beginners can brew the recipes as is, intermediate and more advanced brewers can use the recipes as a base to build from. to use your example, a beginner who brews extract w/grains doesn't have the means to do a decoction, so the recipe provides the next best way to present that beer. you or i could eliminate the crystal malt and do a decoction mash to caramelize some base malt. i personally like some of the recipes in that book, but when i brew them, they're completely tuned to my equipment and process.

as far as Designing Great Beers goes, i keep hearing that's a great read. i think i need to get myself a copy.

 

[WortMonger]

as far as Designing Great Beers goes, i keep hearing that's a great read. i think i need to get myself a copy.

Do yourself the biggest favor ever and buy that book. We used it all the time in the brewery to see if our ideas were too far off for specific beers. Example, our house stout done with a kolsch yeast. Yummy! Though the book didn't tell us to do that, it made us look at what it might add to the party.