step V.S decoction

[Arbe0]

I am sure this has been talked a lot before.
I have a 30 amp 240v electric system with a HERMS coil. I want to hear from other brewers what they think about this subject.
Do you see much difference when using a Step mash as apposed to Decoction mash in brewing your beer?

 

[kevin58]

Can't help you here. I have such a system but only do single step infusion mashes.

 

[kh54s10]

I don't have the ability of step mashes, but the two methods are very different. I did a decoction once and it was dramatically different than my single infusion mashed. I would expect a step mash to make minor differences.

 

[Vale71]

I see huge differences between decoction and step mashes, it doesn't matter whether single- or multi-step. But I tend to use decoction sparingly (it is time consuming) and only for beers that will greatly benefit from it (i.e. darker styles) but when I do I tend to go "medieval" on those decoction steps. My current limit is two decoction steps of 60 minutes each but I'm thinking of going 90 minutes the next time I try a Doppelbock.

 

[TheMadKing]

I notice a much greater level of attenuation from step mashing using my HERMS only, whereas I get the same effect plus maillard flavors and more developed malt flavors from decoction

All decoction mashes are step mashes but not all step mashes are decoction mashes so they are related by that fact.

 

[Denny]

I don't see much difference between step, decoction and single infusion. Multiple tests have borne that out.

 

[Robert65]

I would never even remotely consider a single infusion mash. But I believe the only significant difference in achieving the steps through decoctions is wasting a huge amount of time and energy and oxidizing the bejeezus out of the wort.

 

[Vale71]

I don't see much difference between step, decoction and single infusion. Multiple tests have borne that out.

Really. No difference between infusion and decoction? With the same grain bill? Where could I find those tests you mention?

 

[kh54s10]

I would never even remotely consider a single infusion mash. But I believe the only significant difference in achieving the steps through decoctions is wasting a huge amount of time and energy and oxidizing the bejeezus out of the wort.

With a cooler mash tun I can't easily do a double infusion mash etc. And the decoction problem is only if you believe in hot side oxidation. I did one decoction mash and it was FAR different than my single infusion mashes, and in the top 10 or all my beers. If oxidation was a problem I want to do it again some day.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I'm in the same boat. With a cooler I can pull off 1 step at best by pouring in boiling water (which in itself isn't a very safe thing to be doing). If faced with only being capable of pulling off 2 steps, where should they generally fall on the Fahrenheit scale?

I've only tried this once in the past, and I must admit that the result was the best home brew I've ever made. For that one I went from 20 minutes at 122 degrees to an hour at 150 degrees as I recall. But that was roughly 22 years ago. Now a step at 122 degrees F. is generally considered to be detrimental.

 

[Robert65]

With a cooler mash tun I can't easily do a double infusion mash etc. And the decoction problem is only if you believe in hot side oxidation. I did one decoction mash and it was FAR different than my single infusion mashes, and in the top 10 or all my beers. If oxidation was a problem I want to do it again some day.

Hot side oxidation happens whether I believe in it or not. Like most German brewers, I now generally brew using low oxygen methods, and this is generally incompatible with decoction. That is why the Germans generally do not do decoction mashes nowadays. (Note all the "generallys.")

But I agree that if you are not running a low oxygen brewhouse, and cannot otherwise achieve multiple steps, decoction remains a viable option. It is still practiced by some older, smaller, Czech and even German brewers who are not following low oxygen practices.

Like every choice in brewing, a tradeoff is involved. My own priorities preclude decoction, and my equipment renders it unnecessary, but others may prioritize decoction, for one reason or another, ahead of other benefits.

The ability to include multiple temperature steps in a mash program does allow the brewer much more control over the composition of the resulting wort, bringing the ability to optimize fermentability, foam quality, and other parameters, as well as increasing yield of extract.

I apologize if my first reply in this thread was insufficiently nuanced. Anybody who wants to pull decoctions, go right ahead. Glad I don't have to.

 

[kh54s10]

I apologize if my first reply in this thread was insufficiently nuanced. Anybody who wants to pull decoctions, go right ahead. Glad I don't have to.

My experience is that there is a big difference between a decocted mash and an infused mash. I can't compare to a stepped infusion though. But if you wanted the results of a decoction mash, you do have to.

 

[Denny]

Really. No difference between infusion and decoction? With the same grain bill? Where could I find those tests you mention?

http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf starting on pg. 25. Taken together, he number of people who had no preference or preferred the infusion beers was greater than those who preferred decoction. To me, that says there was no preference for decoction.

 

[kh54s10]

http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf starting on pg. 25. Taken together, he number of people who had no preference or preferred the infusion beers was greater than those who preferred decoction. To me, that says there was no preference for decoction.

This seems to say there is no preference but does not say that there isn't a difference.

 

[Denny]

This seems to say there is no preference but does not say that there isn't a difference.

I guess if there was a difference it wasn't one that made the people like the beer more

 

[kh54s10]

I guess if there was a difference it wasn't one that made the people like the beer more

True. I only did one decoction and it was far different than similar recipes without decoction and I liked it a lot. No side by side though.

 

[Denny]

True. I only did one decoction and it was far different than similar recipes without decoction and I liked it a lot. No side by side though.

Unless you do a blind triangle you can't be certain.

 

[Vale71]

Unless you do a blind triangle you can't be certain.

Which you didn't do as from the form it's obvious you only did a side-by-side. If your tasters hadn't been able to detect the difference between an infusion mash and a double decoction with up to 60 minute boils I would have seriously questioned their ability to participate in any kind of tasting panel BTW.

Feel free to retract at any time your clearly unfounded statement that there is no difference between infusion and decoction. Just to be clear, preference and difference are definitely two completely different concepts and are never, under any circumstance, interchangeable. Preference is clearly subjective, difference clearly isn't.

 

[Vale71]

Hot side oxidation happens whether I believe in it or not. Like most German brewers, I now generally brew using low oxygen methods, and this is generally incompatible with decoction. That is why the Germans generally do not do decoction mashes nowadays. (Note all the "generallys.")

Decoction is perfectly compatible with low oxygen methods. There reason it is falling out of use is simply because it uses up more time and energy making it too costly for modern breweries that have to deal with ever dwindling margins.

 

[micraftbeer]

Sometimes we forget that homebrewing is a hobby. It's something we do with our spare time that we enjoy. If we were running a professional brewery, then things like blind triangles on the masses are important data. If the majority of my customers can't tell the difference for some costly or time-consuming process, I should probably kill that process.

But for homebrewing, our most important customer is ourselves. If 9 out of 10 people in a blind triangle test can't tell the difference, but we're that 10th guy, then that's what matters. Or even if we can't nail it in a blind triangle test, but we enjoy doing our hobby that way, that counts equally as much.

Of course we should pay attention to research and studies like this so we can re-think our own process, and maybe there's something we're doing that we're not particularly enjoying. And we can cut that out and feel relieved.

I for one do multi-step mash of 100F, 122F, 148F, and 168F. I am personally convinced it gives me a better wort and I can visibly tell the difference in the final beer quality with how the droplets have more surface tension than if I didn't. But I have read the studies and reports on how all of those steps aren't really necessary and I'm wasting my time. I still do it on some of my beers because I'm convinced it makes a difference. But when trying a new recipe, I try to stay away from it so I don't get myself convinced and stuck in a path of "well, it was good last time, and I used that mash profile, so I'll just stick with it".

Anyway, to each their own.

 

[friarsmith]

Good debate/discussion here. For most Euro-lagers, especially more malt-centric styles, I’m convinced that combining a few temperature steps and a decoction boil is the only way to achieve the “it” factor in styles like (off the top of my head) Munich Helles, Doppelbock, Fest Beers and CZ Lagers. Of course, this assertion doesn't carry a lot of weight when I can only point to anecdotal results from my garage and the beers are long gone. But I've brewed these and other Euro styles 'both ways' with both identical and different grain bills (to offset a skipped decoction). For me, there is no substitute for decocting.

But decocting doesn't have to be a PITA. One way to reduce time and still reap the benefits is to pull a single thick decotion midway through your last starch conversion rest and boil it in a small side kettle 15-20 mins, then remix with the main mash to hit mashout. This way, you overlap the decoction with the conversion rest and save some time. And a thicker decoction here means leaving most of the enzymes dissolved in the liquid wort behind to continue conversion while you boil grain like a dutiful German. You can replicate a single/double/triple decoction in one step based on how much thick mash you pull. For a 10lb grain bill, roughly 1/2/3 gallons of thick mash boiled 15-20 minutes will replicate 1/2/3 individual decoctions done the old fashioned way. This method is loosely based on a Braukaiser method, and you can do it with almost any equipment setup.

Time to mash-in a DIPA. My first DIPA in maybe four years. And no, I won't be decocting it

 

[Vale71]

But decocting doesn't have to be a PITA. One way to reduce time and still reap the benefits is to pull a single thick decotion midway through your last starch conversion rest and boil it in a small side kettle 15-20 mins, then remix with the main mash to hit mashout.

That is exactly how you're not supposed to do a single decoction step. The reason is that boiling will release unconverted starches from the decoction mash and if you hit mashout when mixing the decoction back with the mash then there won't be any active enzymes left to fully convert those starches.
When doing a single decoction it's much better to mash in below protein rest temperature and pull a single, larger decoction that will make you jump to the first (and possibly only, saccharification doesn't have to by multi-step) saccharification step and then finish with infusion until mash out. No unconverted starches and a lot of taste contribution from the single decoction step. This is one of my favourite mixed schedules by the way.

 

[friarsmith]

To clarify, by the time I'm pulling the thick decoction I generally have been in the starch conversion range for at least 45 minutes depending on previous direct fired steps, so conversion is mostly complete.

 

[Robert65]

To clarify, by the time I'm pulling the thick decoction I generally have been in the starch conversion range for at least 45 minutes depending on previous direct fired steps, so conversion is mostly complete.

Conversion of available starch is nearly complete. I believe Vale71 is quite correct on this; boiling a decoction will expose additional starch not directly available in an infusion (which is why decoction mashes give a higher yield of extract.) If this is done at mash off, the additional starch will pass unconverted into the wort.

 

[Vale71]

To clarify, by the time I'm pulling the thick decoction I generally have been in the starch conversion range for at least 45 minutes depending on previous direct fired steps, so conversion is mostly complete.

Starch that is still caught up in the grains and hasn't fully gelatinized cannot be converted. It's not so bad as it won't be extracted in any significant amount and will only affect your extraction efficiency, unless you apply strong heat to part of the mash like when doing a decoction...

 

[Vale71]

...(which is why decoction mashes give a higher yield of extract.)...

I get at least 5% greater yield, possibly even more with a double decoction.