Decoction for Ales

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.

TastyAdventure

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
731
Reaction score
51
I don't think I've ever heard of a recipe where there is a decoction followed by the pitching of an Ale yeast. Is there any reason why this is?
Has anyone done a decocted ale?
I'm thinking about doing one...
 
Use fully modified malts, add a pinch of melanoidin malt, do a single infusion and call it good.

Kidding aside, there's no reason you can't. I imagine using a cleaner fermenting yeast might let your palate tell the difference between decoction and single infusion, but there's no rules saying you can't decoction mash a 1.100 a bourbon maple chocolate banana RIS.
 
I don't even decoct my lagers, no reason to do so. Could be an interesting experiment though.
 
Scotch Ales are boiled for a long time, to get that nice caramelized malliardy goodness, which is at least sorta in the same ballpark? Although, I imagine boiling the whole beer (or even just all of the first runnings) has more of an effect than just boiling part of the mash...

As Weezy hinted, the reason is likely that it's a lot of work for a rather subtle effect that can easily be overwhelmed by whatever else is going on in your ale.
 
Thanks guys. It's a little disappointing hearing that decoction is " not worth" the time and effort.
I was thinking of doing a decoction AND boiled down kettle caramelized ale... Maybe throw some melanoiden malt in there too, lol.
 
I think decoction is worth it. I do it for German lagers.

I've only done it for ales when I've been step mashing and missed my final temp.
 
Add me in the pro-decoction camp. I find all my Weizen (Hefe, Dunkelweizen, Weizenbock) beers are better with decoction mashes. I don't normally decoct my Alt or Kölsch but I've considered it. I may play with it in the future.
 
So many people told me that just using Melanoidin malt would take care of the flavor, but I honestly could tell a drastic improvement in my Helles when I moved to decoction (and I'm doing a single rest step).

I think we as homebrewers try to take shortcuts on methods too often. We focus too much on ingredients and not on methodology. Decoction is extremely important for the correct flavor of German beers. In general German beers are far more method driven than ingredient driven. You will almost never see a German brewery using crystal malt in their Helles or chocolate malt in their Dunkel, but I've seen both in recipes online (or a "touch" of wheat in a Pilsner).

Maybe it's me still clinging to the old ideas (I used to be a Reinheitsgebot snob), but I truly think better beer is made with more effort.

Back on topic: I don't think you'd get that much benefit in an IPA, but for a lightly hopped pale ale I think it would fit. No reason not to, I've played with the idea myself. On my barleywine I was forced to do a mini-decoction because I couldn't fit anymore water into the mash tun and I hadn't reached my desired temperature (my mistake), and also to mash out. It was small and the FG is about 1.024, so it's hard to say if it added anything.

Edit: I want to add that I like experimentation, but making a good standard beer should be the goal before experimenting with a style.
 
I prefer decoction over Melanoiden malt, it doesn't taste the same to me. I think everyone should try and decide for yourself. If your worried about long brew day try the Schmitz Process, its a single decoction that boils all the grains and only adds about 30-60 minutes on to a normal brew day. I've been using this decoction for all my lagers with great results.
 
Thanks guys. It's a little disappointing hearing that decoction is " not worth" the time and effort.
I was thinking of doing a decoction AND boiled down kettle caramelized ale... Maybe throw some melanoiden malt in there too, lol.

I personally don't mind the added time to my brew day. I already have lots of down time in between stuff (60 minute mash, 60 minute boil, 20 minutes of cooling, 1.5-2 hours of assorted cleaning and preparation tasks), another 30 minutes to pull a quick single decoction really is no sweat off my back (well in summer, it can be a lot of sweat off my back but I'm not worried about it, make brew day a work out). I find my beers clear a bit better and the trub cake is more dense for my beers I do decoction mashes on.

I cannot comment on the flavor difference. Since the extra time doesn't bother me at all I'm not going to really bother buying melanoidin malt. This isn't meant to be a knock on using melanoidin malt, I just find its worth it to me on my brew day to go ahead and do the decoction. (I have noticed on my larger grain bills non-decoction mashes I get the average lower efficiency, on decoction mashes the larger grain bills will give me the 75-80% efficiency so theres that added benefit as well).

I won't debate the flavor part of the equation because some say you cant tell the difference between melanoidin and doing a decoction. Others say you can tell the difference. Both will quote tests and annecdotal evidence to suggest their side is right. It really boils down to which is more important to you, shorter brew day? Use melanoidin malt. Doesn't matter how long the brew day is? Do whichever you feel like. I think the decoction is fun and cool to watch the bits of grain burst and caramelize and stir and boil, definitely feels very medieval even if I'm doing it on a glass top stove(I use propane for everything else but the electric glass top stove range really makes the decoction easy to control and you get a really nice even caramelization without scorching the grain, also its air conditioned in side so hot summer days step away from the hot steamy water to cool off inside).
 
I am generally more of a malty flavor guy than hoppy beers (though I brew a lot of both). So for the malty flavor, you just can't beat a decoction. Both of my recent lagers were decocted.

I have decoted some ales as well. Barleywine, Altbier, Kolsch (definitely alters the flavor, not necessarily a bad thing). Definitely kettle carmelized my Wee Heavy, its sort of a decoction (minus the grain). Even tried it in an APA, though I did not like it in that one. If its meant to be hoppy, keep the malt levels lower I learned :)
 
You can mash starting with 1.25 qt.lb. However, the mash will have to be thinned if you are fly sparging. Water might have to be added to maintain rest temperatures, as well.

Ale was decoction mashed before the invention of modern malt, which wasn't that long ago.

I began learning the triple decoction method in 1987 and stuck with it.
If you are going to attempt a decoction mash, it is best to remove the first decoction while the main mash is in the acid rest. By doing it that way, you won't have to worry about enzymatic action taking place in the main mash. Since, enzymatic action is nil in the main mash during the acid rest, the first decoction can be boiled for a long enough length of time to produce mellanoidin. It is a good idea to allow the first decoction to fully convert at a temperature suitable for alpha enzymatic action to take place.
 
"What's the harm in a thick mash?"

No harm whatsoever. The reason that a thick mash works with the decoction method has to do with preservation of enzymes. Basically, a thick mash preserves enzymes, that will be needed later on during the various temperature rests. At the end of a properly performed decoction mash and according to the style of beer being brewed, two to three qt/lb can end up as the final volume of water used throughout the process. It just isn't dumped in all at one time. The important thing to remember is that mash viscosity changes throughout the process and the mash may need to be thinned. Because mash viscosity can become very high, fly sparging becomes real tough.

I dough in with one qt/lb of cold water to allow mash pH to stabilize, caused by the inherent pH of the malt and the pH of the brewing water. If mash pH is acceptable, I will remove the first decoction and step it through a proteolysis rest and an alpha conversion rest, before bringing it to a boil. While the first decoction is resting, I fire the mash tun, raising the main mash up to 95 to 100F and let it rest at that temp until the end of the decoction boil.

Mash will jell after it is boiled. When that happens, an entire different circumstance begins to take place, enzymatically. During that time and depending on the rest period, beta or alpha or both at the same time, will reduce the jell (amylopectin) to A and B Limit Dextrin. It is Limit Dextrin that is responsible for the body and mouthfeel in beer, not necessarily from non-fermentable sugar formed during mash temps in the alpha I and II range.
 
I prefer decoction over Melanoiden malt, it doesn't taste the same to me. I think everyone should try and decide for yourself. If your worried about long brew day try the Schmitz Process, its a single decoction that boils all the grains and only adds about 30-60 minutes on to a normal brew day. I've been using this decoction for all my lagers with great results.

This is more-or-less what I hear from people have done side-by-side comparisons. Decoction mashes and Melanoidin malt mashes don't taste the same. Some people prefer one and some prefer the other.
 
I brew predominantly German and Czech lagers, and I use a stepped decoction mash for most of my beers. I haven't done any triangle tests to prove it, but I believe that my beers have better clarity, body, head retention, and flavor than when I did single infusion mashes. My method takes about 2.5 hours from strike to sparge, but with ample downtime to go off and do other things. I use a directly heated mash tun, but you could do this mash in a cooler by striking thicker and using a hot water infusion to step from the protein rest to the maltose rest.

Mash at 2 quarts / pound

1. Strike at 130 degrees F; hold protein rest for 15 minutes. Adjust pH to 5.4 with lactic acid.

2. Directly heat up to 145 degrees F; hold maltose rest 20 minutes

3. Pull the entire grist along with about 1/3 of the liquid into a separate kettle. I line my mash tun with a BIAB bag to make transferring the grain easy.

4. Raise the thick decoction to 160 degrees F, hold for 15 minutes. Maintain the temperature of the main mash at 145 F. Raise the decoction to a boil and boil for 30 minutes, periodically replenishing with water to maintain original volume as moisture boils off.

5. Ladle the decoction back into the main mash to bring the temperature up to 160 F; not all the decoction will be necessary to reach this temperature, so cool any remaining decoction to 160 before adding back in to main mash. Hold this dextrinization rest for 60 minutes before mashing out and sparging.
 
I'm a decoction mash great fan, and I use it almost in every batch. I want my beers have a malty taste, good foam retention, that is easier to achieve with one step decoction: 40 minutes at 65°C, 1/3 of the thick mash boiled for 20 minutes, then aded back to the mash, to raise 72°C.
If I need beers with less body, I add the boiling grains slowly back to the mash tun, so the temperature stays around 66-68°C and beta amilases keep working.

Empowering the malty and nutty taste this way is good also for ales, IPAs or bitter, to balance the hoppyness with some malt flavour.
I really hate the so-called APA or IPA made recently by many craft brewery in Italy: they seems like bad lemonade or soda because you just feel the american hops and have absolutely no body.
 
You could adapt the step- mash process for IPA at Weyermann's website to a decoction method. Just scale down the hops to the level that you want.
 
Back
Top