Decoction questions and concerns!

[zero_gabe]

So I have both an Oktoberfest and Helles Bock lined up for brewing. Now Ive been reading into decoction mashing and all i get out of it is that its a huge debate. Tons of people say its outdated and not necessary with modern modified malt. But a lot f people say that if i want that true german flavor and maltiness, decoction is a must. What are your guys thoughts and experiences between decoction and infusion mashes for german lagers. Thanks for your help!


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

I like decoction mashing, if its appropriate, I do it. If you find it fun, do it. You could substitute decoction with adding other specialty malts that could *maybe* mimic the taste of decoction mashing. I remember some discussion either on Brew Strong or some other podcast where they untrained, or 'regular' taste buds wouldnt be able to tell the difference if you used the right malts and did it side by side with a decoction mash.

 

[zero_gabe]

What have been your taste experiences with it? Were you able to notice a difference from decoction and infusion? Sorry for the massive amounts of questions haha


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[stratslinger]

My club recently did an in-depth experiment, comparing single infusion to various decoction methods, all using the same equipment, same water, same recipe. In the end, we tasted the finished beers and had a few BJCP judges taste the beers - the actual differences were negligible. Especially when you factor in the time and effort for the decoctions, we all agreed that single infusion is the way to go.

 

[zero_gabe]

Thats a type of approach i was hoping to hear. That sounds like a very controlled experiment with solid results. From what Im able to gather it seems the die hard traditionalist like to do decoctions and swear by them. But i wanted to make sure that I the beat tasting lager possible


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[helibrewer]

Had a discussion with Dr. Bamforth about this which backs-up the above experiment that there is not a significant enough difference to bother with it given todays highly modified grains.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

Had a discussion with Dr. Bamforth about this which backs-up the above experiment that there is not a significant enough difference to bother with it given todays highly modified grains.

It was my impression that decoction mashing also ends up affecting flavor and color. True if we are discussing only the issue of modified vs. unmodified grains then I can see that making sense.

But on the aspect of flavor and color, without the decoction, wouldn't one need to include specialty grains to make up for the color and flavor deficit?

 

[giraffe]

I enjoy doing decoctions, and with my cooler as a mash tun, its easier to do step mashes with decoctions and maintain a good water to grist ratio, for things like hefeweizens. There is a large debate, some say adding 2 or 3% meladonin malt or similar will mimic the flavor and color contributions, then some say different. Personally, my time is cheap, I got all day on brew day, and enjoy the process.

My efficiency is higher when I do decoctions vs single infusion. Though with the extra propane burnt, its probably not much savings.

 

[stratslinger]

Not in our experiment (decoction affecting color and flavor) - doing a blind tasting, we all tried to identify what was what based on appearance, aroma, flavor, you name it. The color of all of them was damn near identical (for the record, the brew was a Dunkel - your mileage may vary with other recipes), and there were only VERY minor variations in flavor. In general, I think the single infusion and double decoction were the slight favorites in the group voting - but the spread on the BJCP judging sheets was something silly like 3 points between the best score and the worst. And nobody could consistently identify which was which in a blind taste test.

 

[JBOGAN]

I did two decoctions two months ago on a oktoberfest and a dunkel. Is there a huge difference, I am not so sure. One thing I know is that they are both damn tasty and now I have one more tool in my toolbox. It really is a PITA but trying it out once just for experience is better than never trying.

 

[helibrewer]

Not in our experiment (decoction affecting color and flavor) - doing a blind tasting, we all tried to identify what was what based on appearance, aroma, flavor, you name it. The color of all of them was damn near identical (for the record, the brew was a Dunkel - your mileage may vary with other recipes), and there were only VERY minor variations in flavor. In general, I think the single infusion and double decoction were the slight favorites in the group voting - but the spread on the BJCP judging sheets was something silly like 3 points between the best score and the worst. And nobody could consistently identify which was which in a blind taste test.

^^^ This. There is talk about flavor, color, melanoidin, etc. but there are no experiments that have shown a statistical difference. If you like doing decoctions for temperature ramps, that makes sense, it is reasonable to do a beta-glucan rest (~50C) prior to reaching conversion temps even for well modified malt since the distal end of the grain is usually not fully modified.

 

[giraffe]

http://www.hoptomology.com/2012/07/...decoction-vs-single-infusion-was-it-worth-it/

There is this guy. But its more likely about the water chemistry/yeast health when using very soft water, than meladonin production. And it certainly isnt a double blind experiment.

 

[Roundhouse]

I personally like decoction mashing. I don't find it difficult at all. In fact I think it's far easier to hit target temperatures than through infusion step mashing. Mash efficiency gets a nice boost. About 10% overall which is significant. Many would argue that it's only a couple of dollars in difference but to me it's not about the money. You can't take one recipe and mash it with an infusion and a decoction and expect two of the same beers. It's not going to happen. The infusion beer is going to be a little different in terms of body, flavor, and color. You of course can reformulate the recipe to make up for these but it's not really the same beer anymore. It's a beer of the same style but can easily be just as good and faster to brew. There are definite advantages to decoction mashes but with today's variety in grains and knowledge about mash profiles, they can certainly be accounted for. At least close enough that most would never notice.

A nice compromise is to do a single decoction mash. Dough in as you normally would at your chosen rest temperature. Aim for a mash thickness of about 1.25 qts water / 1 lb grain. At the 45 minute mark in your mash, pull 1/3 of the mash into the kettle and bring it to a boil for 10 or 15 minutes. Then return it to the main mash to raise the temperature to mashout. It doesn't add tons of time to the day and you get some of the benefits of a decoction. When you recirculate you'll notice that you get some finer deposits on top of the grain bed. Give this method a try. It works good.

 

[zero_gabe]

Awesome idea and thoughts. Thank you guys or your in depth opinions on this topic. Feeling the room out I get that decoction mash really isn't needed and doesn't give that much of a difference, or if anything, than an infusion mash. But i definitely want to do it t least once just to try out and say that i have done it.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[jlangfo5]

I did my first decoction mash a few weeks ago on a vienna lager. I wanted to get the color of a Vienna lager without having to use any specialty malts for color or extra flavor. I ended up going 85% vienna with the rest being munich and carapills. Mine is not ready to drink yet, but I would imagine that the results of a decoction mash would be more apparent the longer you boiled your decoctions. I boiled mine for 30 minutes each, with the last decoction of the three being boiled for 40 minutes.

Also, I would like to see how many of the decoction vs melanodion malt taste test would work on some of the corner cases of german lager, like lets say helles and dopple bock.

 

[helibrewer]

I'm not trying to get down on decoction, I use it for Hefeweizens to get from the ferulic rest to the sach rest temp. Whether to do it or not is historical and personal preference. Excellent lagers can be made using single infusion, step mash, or decoction. One thing I will say if you listen closely to the Pilsner Urquell website is that they use a special, harder malt...this is a fancy way of saying under-modified, made especially for them and historically, decoctions were used to overcome under-modified malts.

Mash on!!

 

[zero_gabe]

Even if l decide to do decoction with modified malts. Are there any rests that i can skip (protein,beta,alpha,mashout)? Or should all those steps be done with decoction? How long should each decoction boil be?


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[helibrewer]

Even if l decide to do decoction with modified malts. Are there any rests that i can skip (protein,beta,alpha,mashout)? Or should all those steps be done with decoction? How long should each decoction boil be?


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

The protein rest is a misnomer, protein breakdown is what makes modified malt modified. A short Beta-Glucan rest at 45-50C followed by your sach rest, then mash out should suffice the majority of the time (exclusive of adjunts/style specific issues).

 

[VladOfTrub]

In the experiment the same high modified malt was used for the English and decoction method. Since, under modified malt works best in a decoction. What if things were turned around and the malt used in the experiment had to be under modified?

I started using the tri-decoction method in 1987 and stuck with it. It took a long time to understand the process and a long time to dial it in. It took a long time to finally get to the point of having the equipment that helps smooth out the process. Until those three things came together it was a hard way to brew beer.

The Kolbach number or the SNR number of malt indicates level of modification. Crisp Malting is producing an under modified malt for the programmed and decoction methods. I have used the malt. The malt is hard to work with. Using the same recipe and process, I prefer the taste of Lager made with Weyermann malt over Crisp. Weyermann Boh Pils floor malt is easy to work with and when tri-decoctioned produces the smooth maltiness found in German beer. The Boh pils dark floor malt produces great Marzen and Octoberfest style lagers.

The length of time that a decoction is boiled depends on what you want to achieve. Also, it depends on the style of beer. If you want to darken the beer, the decoction needs to be boiled until malliard reaction is noticed. After that, melanoidin is produced. If the purpose of the boil is to produce melanoidin, it's not a bad idea to convert the decoction at 155F or at least rest it at the temp for 20 minutes before boiling it. If you are using low modified malt a rest at 125F isn't a bad idea, if the 1st decoction is pulled from the main mash during the acid rest. The 1st decoction will be used to raise the mash from acid rest temp to a temp in the proteolytic range. It's better to boil the 1st decoction the longest, during the acid rest of the main mash when very little enzymatic action is taking place. In the 2nd decoction the proteolytic temp range can be skipped. The decoction can be rested at 145 for 20 minutes and then boiled for about 10 minutes. The 2nd decoction would be used to raise the main mash temp to somewhere in the beta range, maybe at a temp before gelatnization. Then, an infusion can be used to jack the temp up to a beta temp above gelatinization, 149F or into the alpha temp range. Keep in mind, beta thermally denatures quicker than alpha, it's a time, temp, pH, mash thickness thing.

 

[wobdee]

Lately I've been looking into decoction and found out about a single decoction called the Schmitz process. Its pretty simple and only adds about an extra hour to my brew day.

Too soon for me to tell if it makes a difference or not, I have more brewing and sampling to do but this method seems like a good way to get into decoction without the long brew day.

 

[Roundhouse]

I haven't tried the Schmitz process yet but may at some point. A good way to get into decoction mashing is to do a simple single decoction. Dough in as you normally would for an infusion mash. Target a thickness of 1.25 qts/1 lb and your standard alpha rest temperature. Let it stand for 45 minutes. Up to this point it's a standard infusion mash. Pull a third of the mash and bring it to a boil. I generally pull a thick portion. Boil anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes and then slowly return to main mash to hit mashout temp. Vorlauf and sparge as normal. It adds a small amount to the brew day but isn't too bad and it gets you into decoction in a simple way. Later on you can try a double or more complicated decoction schedule. Even if I do a standard infusion mash, I still at least drain off all of the liquid and bring it to a boil to return to the main mash to hit mashout. It's not quite the same but it's a similar amount of time. I am a decoction believer. Just because it isn't "necessary" with today's malts doesn't mean it doesn't have some benefits.

 

[mjohnson]

http://www.hoptomology.com/2012/07/...decoction-vs-single-infusion-was-it-worth-it/

There is this guy. But its more likely about the water chemistry/yeast health when using very soft water, than meladonin production. And it certainly isnt a double blind experiment.

My experiment resulted in the same result as this author. If I'm not decocting a pils, I will add minerals next time. The decocted one was awesome. The only regret I have is that I didn't do 10 gallons.