Taking time efficiency to ridiculous extremes 79 minute brew

[Owly055]

What was never stated was the kind of beer you were trying to brew. I look forward to the results as you perceive them.

The beer is a pseudo cream ale with an OG of 1.040, very loosely based on the Cream of Three Crops recipe..... but considerably higher IBUs and hop presence, and no corn, so it cannot legitimately be called a cream ale, or really be associated with the original recipe legitimately.

2.5 gallon brew
IBU 25
SRM 2.4
ABV 4.73 (projected based on actual OG and predicted FG with US-05)
OG 1.044 (actual)

2.5 pounds 2 row
1 pound rice

1 oz Willamette (pellet) @ 15
1 oz Crystal (leaf) @ 5
.5 oz Crystal (leaf) whirlpool @ 165F ......... until cooled (about 8 hours)

Being a very light beer, any "defects" will be immediately evident in the finished product. The flavor of the wort is great, and it is in full ferment with krausen and lots of visible action in my transparent fermenter. I pitched at about 7:00, and it's now 11:45

H.W.

 

[stpug]

Decoction as it relates to brewing is removing a subset of the mash to be boiled in a second vessel +/- a saccharification rest on the decoted portion prior to bring it to a boil. This is returned to the main mash to raise its temperature to the next planned rest temperature. Repeated as needed to match the brewers desired mash profile.

This is not what the OP is doing nor is it what you are describing.

Boiling hops in wort is not a decoction.

Filtering grain out prior to bringing wort to a boil is not a decoction.

He removed a subset of the mash. He boiled in a second vessel. A saccharification rest is not needed for a mashout decoction. He returned it to the main mash (I assume with the hopes of raising the temperature), but failed to raise the temp. Perhaps this could simply be considered a failed mashout decoction.

If hops end up in a decoction I do not believe disqualifies the process as a decoction.

Mashout decoctions, as performed by most homebrewers, generally DO filter most/all of the grain since we simply pull the "thin decoction" from the ball valve which usually means it's filtered to some degree.

At some point you ask yourself, how much grain needs to be included to be called a "decoction" - particularly a "thin decoction".

 

[hunter_le five]

Owly, you really know how to get 'em riled up!

You should see some of his other threads.

 

[Owly055]

He removed a subset of the mash. He boiled in a second vessel. A saccharification rest is not needed for a mashout decoction. He returned it to the main mash (I assume with the hopes of raising the temperature), but failed to raise the temp. Perhaps this could simply be considered a failed mashout decoction.

If hops end up in a decoction I do not believe disqualifies the process as a decoction.

Mashout decoctions, as performed by most homebrewers, generally DO filter most/all of the grain since we simply pull the "thin decoction" from the ball valve which usually means it's filtered to some degree.

As some point you ask yourself, how much grain needs to be included to be called a "decoction" - particularly a "thin decoction".

It raised the temp about 10 degrees, requiring heat to reach the desired mashout temp. I did not expect to reach the desired temp with my small decoction, that was a secondary purpose. Hop isomerization was the primary purpose. Next time I may increase the volume... or I may not.

H.W.

 

[stpug]

The beer is a pseudo cream ale with an OG of 1.040, very loosely based on the Cream of Three Crops recipe..... but considerably higher IBUs and hop presence, and no corn, so it cannot legitimately be called a cream ale, or really be associated with the original recipe legitimately.

2.5 gallon brew
IBU 25
SRM 2.4
ABV 4.73 (projected based on actual OG and predicted FG with US-05)
OG 1.044 (actual)

2.5 pounds 2 row
1 pound corn

1 oz Willamette (pellet) @ 15
1 oz Crystal (leaf) @ 5
.5 oz Crystal (leaf) whirlpool @ 165F ......... until cooled (about 8 hours)

Being a very light beer, any "defects" will be immediately evident in the finished product. The flavor of the wort is great, and it is in full ferment with krausen and lots of visible action in my transparent fermenter. I pitched at about 7:00, and it's now 11:45

H.W.

That's a great recipe choice to really critique this beer. There's nothing for any off characteristics to hide behind. Good call.

I assume you meant 'no rice' because you definitely listed that corn is in the recipe. And, I don't think either missing from the recipe exclude it from being a "cream ale".

 

[kombat]

He removed a subset of the mash. He boiled in a second vessel. A saccharification rest is not needed for a mashout decoction. He returned it to the main mash

I don't think that's what Owly was describing at all.

The way I interpreted it was, he collected his runnings, completely separating it from the grains, like we all do. He then took some of that wort and boiled it in another smaller pot, adding hops, while the rest of the wort sat in the main pot. There was no grain left in the process at this point - just 2 differently sized pots of wort, one boiling, one just sitting there. After 20 minutes or so of boiling the smaller pot of wort and hops, he added it back to the main pot of wort, which had the effect of raising the overall temperature of the combined pot of wort to around 165° F or so.

No mash was boiled, no wort was returned to any mash.

 

[Owly055]

I would like to apologize to those who feel this is just plain wrong.... I've obviously offended your sensibilities. You are really going to be offended and outraged when you read about my sub one hour all grain brew process in about two weeks.

I heartily encourage you to shun my threads for your health ;-)

High blood pressure and appoplexy can kill you and I would be very upset to find someone had died while reading one of my threads ;-(


H.W.

 

[Owly055]

That's a great recipe choice to really critique this beer. There's nothing for any off characteristics to hide behind. Good call.

I assume you meant 'no rice' because you definitely listed that corn is in the recipe. And, I don't think either missing from the recipe exclude it from being a "cream ale".

Oops.... you are correct, I'll correct my typo.

 

[Gavin C]

He removed a subset of the mash.

Per the Op's post #1, he did not. He lautered and took 3/4 gallon of sweet wort to boil with hops.

Pulled the grain bag out, and quickly dumped an estimated 3/4 gallon of wort into another pot, put it on high heat, and tossed in my bittering addition as it rapidly came to a boi

 

[stpug]

I don't think that's what Owly was describing at all.

The way I interpreted it was, he collected his runnings, completely separating it from the grains, like we all do. He then took some of that wort and boiled it in another smaller pot, adding hops, while the rest of the wort sat in the main pot. There was no grain left in the process at this point - just 2 differently sized pots of wort, one boiling, one just sitting there. After 20 minutes or so of boiling the smaller pot of wort and hops, he added it back to the main pot of wort, which had the effect of raising the overall temperature of the combined pot of wort to around 165° F or so.

No mash was boiled, no wort was returned to any mash.

You may be correct, I wasn't there to witness brewday. I was interpreting from what he posted:

Process was a 30 minute inline mash, inline meaning I doughed in at 130F doing BIAB, fast heated to 145 from the 120 actual temp after adding grain (about 5 min), then slow heated to 155 at about 3 minutes to the degree. Pulled the grain bag out, and quickly dumped an estimated 3/4 gallon of wort into another pot, put it on high heat, and tossed in my bittering addition as it rapidly came to a boil.... about 5 minutes.... Boiled the decoction for 10 minutes, added my flavor and aroma addition, and boiled an additional 5 minutes for a total of 15 minute boil, and about a 20 minute total operation. The decoction went back into the wort, which raised the wort only to about 155 again, so I put the total back on the stove top and raised the temp to 165 (with the whirlpool hops in it). Covered the pot, and set it in a cool place over night.

I see:
-mash up to 155F
-----remove portion of wort and put in separate pot
-----boil wort portion w/ hops
-return portion to main wort (missing attempt at raising mash temp)
-direct heat all wort to 165F
-cover; no chill

 

[kombat]

You may be correct, I wasn't there to witness brewday. I was interpreting from what he posted:

I see:
-mash up to 155F
-----remove portion of wort and put in separate pot
-----boil wort portion w/ hops
-return portion to main wort (missing attempt at raising mash temp)
-direct heat all wort to 165F
-cover; no chill

You missed the part (although it's in your quote) where he "Pulled the grain bag out" (he was doing BIAB). After that, the pot ONLY contained wort - no more grain/mash.

 

[Yooper]

Pardon me.........I did fail to point out that this was a "hop decoction", not a mash decoction. Decoction in brewing USUALLY means boiling some of the grain in your mash, but by the broader definition of decoction, this definitely IS a decoction, though it does not match your idea of a decoction as regards brewing.

H.W.

de·coc·tion
diˈkäkSHən/
noun
noun: decoction; plural noun: decoctions

the liquor resulting from concentrating the essence of a substance by heating or boiling, especially a medicinal preparation made from a plant.
"a decoction of a root"
the action or process of extracting the essence of something.

Origin
late Middle English: from late Latin decoctio(n-), from decoquere ‘boil down’ (see decoct).

Ah! I thought we were talking about brewing, in a brewing forum, and didn't think I needed to have the word explained to me in a non-brewing sense.

By that definition, ALL brewing is always a decoction.

Anyway, sorry I got sucked into this. Carry on!

 

[stpug]

Per the Op's post #1, he did not. He lautered and took 3/4 gallon of sweet wort to boil with hops.

Pulled the grain bag out, and quickly dumped an estimated 3/4 gallon of wort into another pot, put it on high heat, and tossed in my bittering addition as it rapidly came to a boi

I think Kai Troester would be reputable source on decoction mashing information. In his video here (https://youtu.be/6VcZRVw2k_o?t=266), he clearly states and demonstates how you can simply pull wort via lauter to be decocted for the mashout decoction without need to pull over any grain. Additionally, he states that there is no need to hold a conversion rest (5:25).

Again, I do not think the usage of hops in the decoction excluded it from being a "decoction".

...and, yes, I understand we're splitting hairs here

 

[stpug]

You missed the part (although it's in your quote) where he "Pulled the grain bag out" (he was doing BIAB). After that, the pot ONLY contained wort - no more grain/mash.

See my post above. Lautered wort can be used for decoction.

 

[kombat]

See my post above. Lautered wort can be used for decoction.

Nope, that's not what you said. Here it is again:

He removed a subset of the mash. He boiled in a second vessel. A saccharification rest is not needed for a mashout decoction. He returned it to the main mash

I think it's quite a stretch to claim that "lautered wort" is "a subset of the mash." The term "subset of the mash" clearly implies a mix of grain and wort.

Also, he never "returned it to the main mash." He returned it to the rest of the wort. By this time, the "mash" was contained in a grain bag that had been removed 20 minutes earlier.

 

[kombat]

stpug, I'm not picking on you, I'm just trying to inject a little clarity into a thread where Owly's description could be better, and he's misusing well-established terms.

 

[stpug]

Nope, that's not what you said. Here it is again:



I think it's quite a stretch to claim that "lautered wort" is "a subset of the mash." The term "subset of the mash" clearly implies a mix of grain and wort.

Also, he never "returned it to the main mash." He returned it to the rest of the wort. By this time, the "mash" was contained in a grain bag that had been removed 20 minutes earlier.

I consider the wort a "subset of the mash" (Gavin's phrase). We differ on this point. That's okay.

You're correct. He returned the decoction to the lautered wort.

What was in the grain bad was not mash; it was spent grains

 

[ArcLight]

Decoction has a specific meaning in brewing. If you take a standard phrase or term, and use it for something else, it will cause confusion.
You will have fewer people interested in your posts and more arguments when you use terms in non-standard ways. If you instead use a term like hop steep or hop tea, or even use more words to describe your process, you may have less confusion.

Pardon me.........I did fail to point out that this was a "hop decoction", not a mash decoction. Decoction in brewing USUALLY means boiling some of the grain in your mash, but by the broader definition of decoction, this definitely IS a decoction, though it does not match your idea of a decoction as regards brewing.

H.W.

de·coc·tion
diˈkäkSHən/
noun
noun: decoction; plural noun: decoctions

the liquor resulting from concentrating the essence of a substance by heating or boiling, especially a medicinal preparation made from a plant.
"a decoction of a root"
the action or process of extracting the essence of something.

Origin
late Middle English: from late Latin decoctio(n-), from decoquere ‘boil down’ (see decoct).

 

[stpug]

stpug, I'm not picking on you, I'm just trying to inject a little clarity into a thread where Owly's description could be better, and he's misusing well-established terms.

No worries. While I understand that owly's decoction could have been performed a little cleaner, to me, it was still a decoction. Otherwise, we'll need to contact Kai also to let him know that he's wrong in his video.

 

[Gavin C]

See my post above. Lautered wort can be used for decoction.

What he (Kai) is illustrating there is simply that the decoction to mash-out should be a thin decoction to minimize the risk of extracted starches in the last decoction remaining in the final wort.

It is simple and without disadvantage to draw wort from the mash tun at this point. If it contains grain no problem. This boiled thin mash/runnings are then returned to the main mash.

What Kai does not do nor describe as a decoction is to lauter and then boil wort and term it a decoction. The two methods, his and what the OP is descibing as a decoction are not comparable in the least.

Terminology and words are important in a written forum like HBT. Having our own unique definition of things is not helpful to future readers who may not be well versed in brewing terminology.

Incorrect terms add confusion and misinformation. I believe it's useful if forum members point these things out. It helps us all to learn collectively.

 

[Jwin]

Everyone is more concerned about his use of the term decoction than the process itself.

Hope this yields successful results.

 

[poptarts]

Here is a video of owlys brew day.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RM963apVBw[/ame]

 

[Owly055]

Arguments about linguistics here are pointless, we will reach our own conclusions based on our own inclinations.

I didn't start this thread to start an argument, though I knew it would get the old ladies in a tizzy, and the usual suspects have not disappointed with the expected comments My goal really was to share a methodology I am experimenting with that incorporates non-original ideas and methods to ultimately I hope achieve a good all grain beer brewed in a sub one hour brew session. I unfortunately cannot take credit for anything original here. RM/MN originally encouraged me to experiment with extremely short mash times. Squaremile's no boil thread inspired me to try no boil........ The wort & hops decoction was my own inspiration, but it someone else thought of it first, as I found googling it, though he did not attach the term "hop decoction" to the procedure as I did his proposed procedure was identical to mine. This was also a no boil thread (not here), and he has not yet tried the procedure.

I look forward to the day I walk into the local microbrewery, where the owner is a friend, and hand him a bottle of one hour all grain no chill ale. Not to mention the LHBS.

Everybody knows my forte is operating completely outside the box.

H.W.

 

[Psylocide]

Here is a video of owlys brew day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RM963apVBw

Love that one.

 

[atom]

Say 'decoction' again. I dare you, I double dare you ...., say decoction one more ******* time!

 

[jonny24]

Whoooolllle lotta arguing over some terminology. I think by now we get what he did and what for, I don't think it really matters what we call it. Maybe in ten years we'll all be discussing our hop decoction methods.

In my mind, while we "understand" decoction to mean "removing and heating some of the mash and putting it back", that is ONLY taken from the context, or a brewing discussion, not the literal definition of decoction. From what that definition in green says, what he did was] a decoction. AND it ALMOST fits the usual brewing definition, only sans grain and with hops. Really, it fits 1.5 definitions.

Hope the beer turns out great owly!

 

[TexasDroughtBrewery]

Sub, I want to see who wins this bet... Kombat or Owl.

 

[CGish]

Process was a 30 minute inline mash, inline meaning I doughed in at 130F doing BIAB, fast heated to 145 from the 120 actual temp after adding grain (about 5 min), then slow heated to 155 at about 3 minutes to the degree.

Are you testing to see if conversion is complete? Or is the 30 minutes experiential in nature?

 

[Auger]

I'm going to refrain from editorializing on the process, because to each their own, and if it works, more power to you. However, being an active forum member here and across a good deal of others, where I've learned a lot, I have ot take issue with this?

Arguments about linguistics here are pointless, we will reach our own conclusions based on our own inclinations.

A major part of forum participation is explaining how and why we try new things, and how it works, so people can learn from it. If you can't express yourself in an accurate manner through a text-based environment, really, THAT is what is kind of pointless. If I post a recipe and it calls for 5 oz of dandelions and share it, and someone brews with me and says "hey those aren't dandelions, they're hops" and I say "well I call them dandelions, let's not argue linguistics, its a pointless discussion", its only pointless because I've made the whole communication so, due to my own indifference to using widely accepted language to communicate thoughts and processes.

 

[broadbill]

Are you testing to see if conversion is complete? Or is the 30 minutes experiential in nature?

whoa, put your sciencey questions back in your holster boy...we got us a discussion about the definition of decoction that needs rectifin'...