I need help understanding step mashes and decocotions

[MapleGroveAleworks]

Hi all, been brewing for a few years now. I'm a big fan of German lagers and would like to try my hand at step mashes and decoctions. Unfortunately for the life of me, I cannot find a detailed step by step instruction set on how to do it. I understand the basics of it, but I don't like jumping into something without fully understanding the steps. Too much money and time involved.

For example, I was looking up Oktoberfest recipes and it recommends a double decoction, and the only thing it sends you to is the Kaiser website which is very detailed:

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Decoction_Mashing

My mind unfortunately doesn't work well with those pictures. I need to be told exactly what to do. Then I'll understand! I don't understand the boiling of the decoction part, so I boil a thick portion and then return to the main mash, well what if I get to my temp of the main mash I need but there is still boiled decoction left over? What do I do with that? Aren't I losing grain then? So many if's that lead me right back to the ease of single infusion.

And the step mashing/protein rest stuff, also confusing. Is that a decoction as well?

I make in my opinion pretty tasty beer, even German lagers using single infusion, so maybe I'm wrecking my brain for no reason.

Hopefully someone can either point me in the direction of a Youtube video that explains exactly what I'm supposed to do at each step, or could help me out on here, or a website or something. I appreciate it!

 

[eluterio]

Im going to assume you have read the link you shared. If you are doing a double decoction and your mind is set on this. Most modern malt are fully modified and there is no need to do an acid rest or even a protein rest. IF you want to do a double first step if you have brewing software plug see if there is a decoction mash schedule. If not I would mash at 135, decoct 1/3 of the thick portion use a strainer, boil it for 5-10 min, dump it back. Stir this let it sit for about 5 mins check temp. Should increase the main mash. Let it sit for up to an hour and repeat. Then begin your sparging procedures.

I do only single decoction mashes. For a helles, Mash at 149 pull out 1/3 and get that temp up to 154 let it sit for 30 min or until its fully converted. Boil for 5 mins and dump back into main mash let it sit for 20 or 30 mins and begin sparge. Vienna lager same but boil longer 10 mins. Czech Pale lager and premium mash at 154 decoct and boil for 8 mins and dump back and sparge.

It can be very time consuming and really I haven't done whats the difference between decocted and non decocted batches if it makes a difference. It on my to brew list. Hope this helps.

 

[tochsner]

I learned to do decoctions from the old Brewing TV episode.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIQPQmELWPo[/ame]

 

[dmtaylor]

My "Dave's Double Decoction with Minimal Minutes and Minimal Messing Around Method" is similar to Kai Troester's double decoction method, with personalized tweaks. I's been a few years, so these notes actually date back to 2013 (copy & paste):

0) This is a no-sparge process. If you don't have enough volume after the decoctions, just add a little extra water. Expect a slight efficiency reduction due to lack of sparge, and consider adding just a little extra malt up front to compensate. More malt = more malt flavor anyway!

1) Calculate the strike volume using about 1.5 to 1.75 qts/lb -- maximum for small beers, minimum for bigger beers.

2) Treat the strike volume with salts as necessary for pH control or flavor, then bring 1/3 of it to a boil.

3) Meanwhile, use the other 2/3 of the strike volume to moisten the crushed grains cold at room temperature.

4) Add the 1/3 boiled volume into the moistened grains and mix well. Resultant temperature should be 95 to 105 F.

5) Immediately pull 2/3 of the thick mash using a colander, and add heat to the thick mash to hit 154 F for 15 minutes.

6) Add 1-2 qt warm water (exact temperature not too important) to the first thick decoction per 5-gallon batch size (disregard exactness of preboil volume at this point), then bring to boil for 15-40 minutes -- maximums for dark beers, minimums for light.

7) Add first decoction back into the main mash and rest at average >=148 F for 15 minutes (exact temperature not terribly important, between 148-158 F should be fine).

8 ) Pull 1/3 of thin mash (fewer chunks of grain material) and bring to a boil.

9) Immediately upon the second decoction reaching a reasonable boil, add the thin decoction right back into the main mash -- no waiting around. Resultant temperature should be ~170 F for mashout.

10) Immediately pull the grain bag (if BIAB), or runoff and continue brewing as normal.

The universe can debate the merits of this process or lack thereof all you want.

By the way..... jury is still out as to whether decoction actually improves flavor at all. However, a good 6 months of lagering and/or aging helps for sure. Patience and time are nice to lagers. Good thing I'm lazy and don't drink heavily.

One other thing: Boil all your noble hops for a full hour. Tastes yummy that way. You don't need any late hop additions. Noble hops can be boiled hard and still show up just fine in the final beer flavor profile.

And another one more thing: Don't do a protein rest at 122 F. It will hurt your beer, today in the 21st century, where we have well modified malts and just don't need to do a protein rest anymore, unless you can find yourself some poorly malted malt. This is the 21st century. We don't do protein rests anymore. Need to get out of this habit. If you do, your beer will turn out thin and watery, and might hurt the head retention as well. Don't do it.

Cheers.

 

[Gavin C]

This might be useful to you

 

[doug293cz]

I can't help you with the decoction procedure, but as other's have said, whether a decoction makes a "better" beer is open to debate. Remember that decoction was developed as a way to control temperatures relatively accurately prior to the invention of thermometers, not because it made better beer. If you want to do a decoction for the challenge, fun, experience, etc. go for it. This is a hobby after all, and it's supposed to be fun for you.

With respect to Oktoberfests in particular, I can say that decoctions are not necessary in order to make an outstanding beer. I won first place (score of 40) in the European Amber Lager category with my single infusion Oktoberfest in a regional competition. Long lager times are also not necessary. The same beer was brewed with Brulosopher's fast lager method, and was only 2 months old at the time of the competition.

Brew on

 

[MapleGroveAleworks]

Thanks everyone for your replies. I think that I have been causing myself some unnecessary anxiety. I try to do things with as much research as possible and sometimes I overthink myself. Gavin I have not read that article before, thanks! I'm going to read through that after work tonight.

 

[02fx4dude]

And another one more thing: Don't do a protein rest at 122 F. It will hurt your beer, today in the 21st century, where we have well modified malts and just don't need to do a protein rest anymore, unless you can find yourself some poorly malted malt. This is the 21st century. We don't do protein rests anymore. Need to get out of this habit. If you do, your beer will turn out thin and watery, and might hurt the head retention as well. Don't do it.

Cheers.

Why would a 122F protein rest hurt the beer?

 

[Denny]

Why would a 122F protein rest hurt the beer?

It's easy to break down the proteins that give your beer head and body. Trust me, I've done it.

 

[Denny]

The best reason to do a step mash or decoction is becasue you want to, not becasue it will necessarily make better beer. I've have done many tests of this and that's the conclusion I've reached.

 

[Yooper]

The best reason to do a step mash or decoction is becasue you want to, not becasue it will necessarily make better beer. I've have done many tests of this and that's the conclusion I've reached.

I think it's a great point. I know Denny has compared identical beers, but one decocted, side by side. I think anybody who thinks something does (or doesn't) make a difference should do that for themselves. Try it, and see what you think. If it makes a difference to you, then it should be something you want to do.

I did find that a super brief protein rest at 131-133 didn't degrade the body or head retention like a rest at 122 did- but..........that doesn't mean it was a benefit!

 

[Denny]

I think it's a great point. I know Denny has compared identical beers, but one decocted, side by side. I think anybody who thinks something does (or doesn't) make a difference should do that for themselves. Try it, and see what you think. If it makes a difference to you, then it should be something you want to do.

I did find that a super brief protein rest at 131-133 didn't degrade the body or head retention like a rest at 122 did- but..........that doesn't mean it was a benefit!

Damning with faint praise!

 

[dmtaylor]

It's easy to break down the proteins that give your beer head and body. Trust me, I've done it.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Can't say I'm shocked.

 

[02fx4dude]

It's easy to break down the proteins that give your beer head and body. Trust me, I've done it.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Can't say I'm shocked.

Interesting... and awesome, thanks for the explanation. I think I'll skip the 122F rest on tomorrows cream ale.

 

[Denny]

Interesting... and awesome, thanks for the explanation. I think I'll skip the 122F rest on tomorrows cream ale.

Keep in mind that whether or not to do a step mash really depends more on the grain you use than the recipe.

 

[MSAstoria]

That brewing TV video is extremely helpful. It's a pretty basic method that I've used several times.

 

[MSAstoria]

Also, I've never done side-by-side comparisons, but it's hard for me to believe that decoction mashing doesn't make a difference, because I can see and smell the changes in the mash while I'm boiling the decoction. And (less subjective), I can see the difference in the numbers - my efficiency always goes up by 5-10% when I decoction mash.

There's probably a bigger difference in beers where you boil the decoction for a long time. I brew a Munich Dunkel that's 100% Munich malt, and I do a triple decoction that I boil for 30 minutes on each round. It takes forever, but it's an amazing beer.

In the end, I mostly do it because I enjoy the labor-of-love aspect - but I do think there's a payoff.

 

[tochsner]

Maybe I am wrong and Denny can correct me if I am but I don't think Denny has ever said decoction doesn't make a difference, I think he has said the difference isn't worth the extra effort to him.

Denny?

 

[Denny]

Also, I've never done side-by-side comparisons, but it's hard for me to believe that decoction mashing doesn't make a difference, because I can see and smell the changes in the mash while I'm boiling the decoction. And (less subjective), I can see the difference in the numbers - my efficiency always goes up by 5-10% when I decoction mash.

There's probably a bigger difference in beers where you boil the decoction for a long time. I brew a Munich Dunkel that's 100% Munich malt, and I do a triple decoction that I boil for 30 minutes on each round. It takes forever, but it's an amazing beer.

In the end, I mostly do it because I enjoy the labor-of-love aspect - but I do think there's a payoff.

Everybody says that til they do a side by side. They just can't believe that all the extra effort doesn't really make a difference.

 

[Denny]

Maybe I am wrong and Denny can correct me if I am but I don't think Denny has ever said decoction doesn't make a difference, I think he has said the difference isn't worth the extra effort to him.

Denny?

What I've said is that in the tests I've done tasters showed no preference for decocted beers. Based on that, and my own tasting, I decided that if the extra effort doesn't make a beer that people like better, what's the point?

 

[dmtaylor]

I decoct my lagers sometimes / most of the time, "just in case", and because "it's fun!". I tried to do a side-by-side a few years ago, but my experiment was a failure -- the control beer got an infection. Maybe time for another experiment, since I'm going to brew a belated maibock probably in May timeframe. Yeah, too late, I know, I know.

 

[doug293cz]

... -- the control beer got an infection...

That's one way to make sure the tasters will prefer the decocted beer! :smack:

Brew on

 

[MSAstoria]

OK, challenge accepted (if I ever have time to do it). When you say side-by-side, are you talking about doing the same recipe and fermentation schedule, but one with decoction and one with infusion? Or are you talking about doing other things in the non-decoction beer to achieve similar results, like an extended boil or using melanoidin malt?

I've seen people claim they can achieve similar/same results by doing things other than decoction mashing - I buy that. But there's definitely a physical/chemical reaction - Maillard reactions - that happen in a decoction. For that to result in a beer that's comparable to one without the same Maillard reactions in the mash, the reactions would have to either be insignificant, or their impact would have to be diminished by something else - maybe fermentation. And at least when I do a Dunkel, where I boil the decoction for 30 minutes (twice) the immediate impact seems apparent, so I lean toward the latter.

If you're saying it's "not better," I think that's a different point.

My theory is that with a decoction, you get (a) a more fermentable wort; therefore one with less residual sweetness; but (b) the drier finish is offset by melanoidins, which give it a "full-bodied" mouthfeel; and (c) it's darker. So you end up with a non-decocted beer that finishes a little sweeter, but with less body. The decocted beer is fuller-bodied, but has a drier finish. (and it's darker, but who cares.)

Does this sound right? Or at least sensible?

 

[aprichman]

Dr. Tom Shellhammer largely attributes the use of decoction mashing (which is still widely used in German brewhouses) to tradition. A lot of these breweries have been around for hundreds of years and are still using the same methods today.

 

[Denny]

OK, challenge accepted (if I ever have time to do it). When you say side-by-side, are you talking about doing the same recipe and fermentation schedule, but one with decoction and one with infusion? Or are you talking about doing other things in the non-decoction beer to achieve similar results, like an extended boil or using melanoidin malt?

I've seen people claim they can achieve similar/same results by doing things other than decoction mashing - I buy that. But there's definitely a physical/chemical reaction - Maillard reactions - that happen in a decoction. For that to result in a beer that's comparable to one without the same Maillard reactions in the mash, the reactions would have to either be insignificant, or their impact would have to be diminished by something else - maybe fermentation. And at least when I do a Dunkel, where I boil the decoction for 30 minutes (twice) the immediate impact seems apparent, so I lean toward the latter.

If you're saying it's "not better," I think that's a different point.

My theory is that with a decoction, you get (a) a more fermentable wort; therefore one with less residual sweetness; but (b) the drier finish is offset by melanoidins, which give it a "full-bodied" mouthfeel; and (c) it's darker. So you end up with a non-decocted beer that finishes a little sweeter, but with less body. The decocted beer is fuller-bodied, but has a drier finish. (and it's darker, but who cares.)

Does this sound right? Or at least sensible?

No, exactly the same with one single infusion and one decocted. If you add other stuff to the infusion beer, you're starting with the assumption there's a difference.

BTW, melanoidins are a color, not a flavor or mouthfeel.

Check this out, starting on pg. 25....http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf

 

[MSAstoria]

Huh - just did some more reading. You're right, I'm misusing the term melanoidin. I'm referring to the flavor effects of the maillard reaction. Thanks for pointing that out!

Great presentation. Is the table from the tasting panel aggregated from multiple trials that used different mash schedules? The slide just before refers to people brewing different beers with a variety of schedules, but then the conclusion slide that follows the table refers specifically to a single decoction boiled for 30 minutes.

I ask because I've noticed the biggest change in my mash on the second decoction (I boil both for 30 minutes for a dunkel). I would think any difference caused by decoction mashing would be minor for a single decoction, but more significant for a double.

The table seems to confirm my theory - to the extent the tasters noticed a difference, they rated the decoction beer slightly maltier (although there was no clear preference overall). I wonder about the fact that the infusion-mashed beers were rated as having more body - wonder if that's because of what you said earlier about a protein rest destroying body. Decoction schedules are much more likely to include one.