Kaiser
Well-Known Member
I guess I just have to reply here 
And I get the feeling, that this debate seems to come up at least one a month. Let me give my view on this subject:
I have read German brewing lierature (published in 2005) and almost all of the mash schedules mentioned in there involve decoctions and single infusion mashing is not mentioned at all. This is where German trained brewers come from and what they learn. And even some home brewers over there wonder how a single saccrification rest can work.
But I still have to understand how much of that preference of decoction mashing is just clinging to old tradition and how much is actuallyt necessary for producing better beer. It has been noted that many German breweries are getting away from deoction mashing to save energy costs. This calls seems to have been answered by the maltsters which nowadays provide a more modified malt. I have also heard that there is growing concern that this is going into the wrong direction, that a more modified malt gives the brewer less control over the final product. Malting and mashing are 2 parts of the same process. Where the maltster stopped, the brewer has to pick up. Having the Maltster take on more and more of the Brewers job also reduces the differences berween beers from made of the same malt by different brewers. This might be contributing to the fact, that German Pilsners are starting to become generic. One exapmle of that is the Durst Turbo* line of malts which are Malts designed for single infusion. If they were so great, why isn't all malt in Germany as highly modified?
To understand why single infusion is so popular with american pro-brewers you have to undersand how it got to be that way. Mircobrewing was born out of home brewing and in home brewing simpler was better. That and the predominatly british styles (with them the highly modified malts) that the early home brewers brewed led to the widespread adoption of single infusion masing in american and britisch home brewing. When McAuliffe and later Grossmann build their first brewhouse they wanted something simple that they can build from scrap. So the 3 vessel single infusion brew house of the average mirco brewery was born. A HLT, A non heated MLT and a brew kettle. Such systems, that don't allow for anything else than a single infusion mash, gave birth to a number of beer styles that are now polular with home brewers. And these styles probably do best when brewed this way.
And I think that's where the 2 worlds clash. The traditional German who was tought that you have to go through various mash rests to get the best beer from the given malt and the American micro brewer, who started as a home bewer and learned that simple is better.
Does deocotion mashing make for a better beer? - depends on what you define as better.
A better question is, does decoction make a difference and can this difference also be achieved by specialty grains? - I don't know. I did notice that the difference may not be significant as I only did a very crude side-by-side experiment. Double decoction vs. single infusion. Double deicoction v.s. equivalent step mash or single infusion with deoction mash-out would have been better. Also the beers were brewed of different weekends. After all there was not much difference that I would be willing to contribute to the decoction mashing.
Until I fully understand where all the arguments for and against deoction mashing are coming from and are maybe able to confirm them with my own experience I don't feel making a call for or against deoction mashing. And I think a lot of the people here on this board are feeling similar.
But I really would like to talk to this guy to see where he is coming from.
That's all I have to say for now
Kai
And I get the feeling, that this debate seems to come up at least one a month. Let me give my view on this subject:
I have read German brewing lierature (published in 2005) and almost all of the mash schedules mentioned in there involve decoctions and single infusion mashing is not mentioned at all. This is where German trained brewers come from and what they learn. And even some home brewers over there wonder how a single saccrification rest can work.
But I still have to understand how much of that preference of decoction mashing is just clinging to old tradition and how much is actuallyt necessary for producing better beer. It has been noted that many German breweries are getting away from deoction mashing to save energy costs. This calls seems to have been answered by the maltsters which nowadays provide a more modified malt. I have also heard that there is growing concern that this is going into the wrong direction, that a more modified malt gives the brewer less control over the final product. Malting and mashing are 2 parts of the same process. Where the maltster stopped, the brewer has to pick up. Having the Maltster take on more and more of the Brewers job also reduces the differences berween beers from made of the same malt by different brewers. This might be contributing to the fact, that German Pilsners are starting to become generic. One exapmle of that is the Durst Turbo* line of malts which are Malts designed for single infusion. If they were so great, why isn't all malt in Germany as highly modified?
To understand why single infusion is so popular with american pro-brewers you have to undersand how it got to be that way. Mircobrewing was born out of home brewing and in home brewing simpler was better. That and the predominatly british styles (with them the highly modified malts) that the early home brewers brewed led to the widespread adoption of single infusion masing in american and britisch home brewing. When McAuliffe and later Grossmann build their first brewhouse they wanted something simple that they can build from scrap. So the 3 vessel single infusion brew house of the average mirco brewery was born. A HLT, A non heated MLT and a brew kettle. Such systems, that don't allow for anything else than a single infusion mash, gave birth to a number of beer styles that are now polular with home brewers. And these styles probably do best when brewed this way.
And I think that's where the 2 worlds clash. The traditional German who was tought that you have to go through various mash rests to get the best beer from the given malt and the American micro brewer, who started as a home bewer and learned that simple is better.
Does deocotion mashing make for a better beer? - depends on what you define as better.
A better question is, does decoction make a difference and can this difference also be achieved by specialty grains? - I don't know. I did notice that the difference may not be significant as I only did a very crude side-by-side experiment. Double decoction vs. single infusion. Double deicoction v.s. equivalent step mash or single infusion with deoction mash-out would have been better. Also the beers were brewed of different weekends. After all there was not much difference that I would be willing to contribute to the decoction mashing.
Until I fully understand where all the arguments for and against deoction mashing are coming from and are maybe able to confirm them with my own experience I don't feel making a call for or against deoction mashing. And I think a lot of the people here on this board are feeling similar.
But I really would like to talk to this guy to see where he is coming from.
That's all I have to say for now
Kai
![Craft A Brew - Safale BE-256 Yeast - Fermentis - Belgian Ale Dry Yeast - For Belgian & Strong Ales - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [3 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51bcKEwQmWL._SL500_.jpg)
