The fraud that has become decoction

[k-daddy]

The ONLY person that is required for judging my beer is ME> I brew beer to drink not to please some judge somewhere I never met. If there is no flavor benefit from decoction, then WHY do we have to add malts as you suggested to GET the flavors of a decocted beer?

I brew two beers with some frequency and have for a number of years - because each has its fans in my circle and because I like both of the and always find them a fun conversation piece with both other brewers and the uninitiated alike. THese are both simply 11 pounds of Pilsner, lager yeast. One is brewed with American hops, one is brewed with noble hops. The "American" versions gets a 90 min mash, and 90 min boil. The "Euro" version is a triple decoction. I vary the yeast at times, and I vary the hops at times often based on what is on hand at the time, but I always brew both together and with the same yeast at the same time.

Aside from differences you are going to get with different hops flavors - there is a marked difference in body, mouth feel, and flavor between the two. If there was NOTHING happening with a decoction where does it come from? And believe me I would not waste my time if it WAS NOT there. I am fairly sure the mouthfeel, and body differences did not come from those hop changes and I am really sure the flavor differences that are usually noted did not. The difference between these beers has always been so noticeable that people have a really hard time accepting that they are essentially the same beer. Bear in mind the hop additions are ALL bittering no flavor or aroma additions and about 35 IBU in both cases. So they are very close beers that virtually everyone who has tried them has picked as NOTABLY different beers. None of that really matters - I personally like both beers so I make them. I personally enjoy time spent brewing, and I am rarely ever in a hurry to rush through the brew day, Decoctions offer a pleasant extra to the day when I am only brewing a single beer - or makes a nice extra step if I am brewing with buddies. Something for everyone to do and try.

Now i do not have to drink your beers. And I do not have to participate in your brew sessions. I cannot speak for the time you have to/ want to spend on beer. If you do not want to spend extra time on more steps that hurts me not. You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe when it comes to what makes your beer tasty to you. BUT when you rationalize your choice by flippantly dismissing the process, AND backhandedly denigrate and dismiss ANYONE who chooses to use that process as ignorant and misinformed, as you do on the closing of your OP - I do take offense at that. The argument over the practice is quite valid and interesting. It was not/ is not necessary to attempt to validate your point by accusing those who don't share it of ignorance and rationalization themselves.

What a great reply! Those who insist that this is a black and white issue should be taken lightly.

 

[huckdavidson]

The points listed under b are pretty solid reasons in my world to still do a decoction to be honest.

As well you should if you see fit but if you do and all of sudden you have an over the top caramelly, malt and melanoiden laden beer that just popped out of some pilsner malt due to the decoction, well that might be showing bias toward the work you put into the decoction as oppossed to reality.

 

[VTMongoose]

Aside from differences you are going to get with different hops flavors - there is a marked difference in body, mouth feel, and flavor between the two. If there was NOTHING happening with a decoction where does it come from?

I mean, one possibility is simply that it's effectively single infusion versus step mashing. The "American" version is not experiencing significant activity for beta-glucanase and protease enzymes.

 

[Miraculix]

As well you should if you see fit but if you do and all of sudden you have an over the top caramelly, malt and melanoiden laden beer that just popped out of some pilsner malt due to the decoction, well that might be showing bias toward the work you put into the decoction as oppossed to reality.

Well, I'm only in for mouthfeel and rock hard foam. Mouthfeel actually isn't that important... So at the end it's the foam and that one can be easily measured and compared so bias is easy to get rid off in this specific case.

 

[bwible]

Now we come back to the whole post (look it up) called “that German taste”? If its not decoction and process then how do you explain it?

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/that-german-lager-taste.695430/page-10#post-10289240

 

[huckdavidson]

Now we come back to the whole post (look it up) called “that German taste”? If its not decoction and process then how do you explain it?

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/that-german-lager-taste.695430/page-10#post-10289240

Decoction and/or process (some beers don't use decoction - Weihenstephaner Helles) obviously contribute to the "The German Lager" taste but the decoction doesn't add over the top caramel, malty and melanoiden flavors. Even the first Helles recipe released by the LODO group had CaraHell in it, take that out and decoct it with just base malt, would the result be the same as the grist with the CaraHell and no decoction, most likely not. The LODO process preserves those malt flavors and aromas but decoction isn't necessarily LODO and in fact decoction contributes to oxidative flavors.

Let's get real about what decoction does and does not contribute.

 

[Red over White]

Well, I'm only in for mouthfeel and rock hard foam. Mouthfeel actually isn't that important... So at the end it's the foam and that one can be easily measured and compared so bias is easy to get rid off in this specific case.

If you are looking for "float a bottle cap on the foam" type head, 4% Carafoam and a 15 min rest at 72°C in your step mash regime will do it. The 4% Carafoam and glycoprotein rest will give you a dense rocky foam in spades.

 

[passedpawn]

If you are looking for "float a bottle cap on the foam" type head, 4% Carafoam and a 15 min rest at 72°C in your step mash regime will do it. The 4% Carafoam and glycoprotein rest will give you a dense rocky foam in spades.

Uh oh. Might want to google the carapils/carafoam myth and related experiments. A bunch of them out there and none of the showed an improvement in head.

I'm doing the experiment right now myself (added carapils to an italian pilsner, for science haha).

 

[Red over White]

Uh oh. Might want to google the carapils/carafoam myth and related experiments. A bunch of them out there and none of the showed an improvement in head.

I'm doing the experiment right now myself (added carapils to an italian pilsner, for science haha).

I agree that on its own it falls flat in an infusion mash. However, I have found weyermann Carafoam and a glycoprotein rest does indeed bring the foam. I usually have a nice clump of foam on the bottom of an empty glass.

 

[Miraculix]

I agree that on its own it falls flat in an infusion mash. However, I have found weyermann Carafoam and a glycoprotein rest does indeed bring the foam. I usually have a nice clump of foam on the bottom of an empty glass.

That's what I wanted to add as well. None of the so called tests brought the mash temp up into a range where glycoproteins are formed in a bigger amount. At the end glycoproteins are the foam factor from malt.

Another flaw in many tests is that they tried it in a hoppy and bitter beer. The increased bitterness increases also foam. So if the foam is already quite stable already, there's not much to gain in that respect.

Thanks for the tip, I will definitely try it in my next brew. If it works, I'll create a thread to debunk the debunking.

 

[AlexKay]

I’m going to sidestep the main issue for a minute. Even assuming decoction matters, can anyone suggest a reason why multiple decoction would be any different that a single decoction (with heat added in some other way for most of the scheduled steps)? Not an opinion, but also not proof: just a single, logically plausible explanation for why multiple decoction steps might somehow make a difference? That’s something I haven’t seen in this thread (or anywhere else, for that matter.)

 

[Miraculix]

I’m going to sidestep the main issue for a minute. Even assuming decoction matters, can anyone suggest a reason why multiple decoction would be any different that a single decoction (with heat added in some other way for most of the scheduled steps)? Not an opinion, but also not proof: just a single, logically plausible explanation for why multiple decoction steps might somehow make a difference? That’s something I haven’t seen in this thread (or anywhere else, for that matter.)

More time on the heat=more time for things to happen?

 

[day_trippr]

I expect it's just the thoroughness of the decoction. The more of the grist that goes through the process the better the extraction, at least, and perhaps the other effects increase as well...

Cheers!

 

[IslandLizard]

Even assuming decoction matters, can anyone suggest a reason why multiple decoction would be any different that a single decoction

It's more complicated/involved, multiple decoctions can be part of a whole mash regimen.
In his post (#6) AJ DeLange presents Eric Warner's wheat decoction schedule with graph and all:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/wheat-beer-protein-rest.360020/post-4506355
That wheat decoction schedule inspired me to do the same, here's my recipe write-up:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/double-decocted-belgian-witbier.514031/

 

[doug293cz]

I expect it's just the thoroughness of the decoction. The more of the grist that goes through the process the better the extraction, at least, and perhaps the other effects increase as well...

Cheers!

The "better extraction" often observed with decoction mashes is simply due to more complete gelatinization of the starch. Starch cannot be hydrolyzed (broken down to sugar and dextrin) until after the chains have been gelatinized. Incomplete gelatinization means that you also have incomplete hydrolysis (incomplete conversion), and less than 100% conversion efficiency. This condition correlates to grit size (crush coarseness), mash time, and mash temp. Smaller grits complete gelatinization faster than larger grits, longer mash times allow more gelatinization to occur (if that is the limiting factor in a particular mash), and higher temps provide faster gelatinization (use of higher temps is limited by the denaturing of required enzymes.) Boiling some of the grist will provide more complete gelatinization while also denaturing all of the enzymes in the boiled portion. Adding the enzyme depleted grist back to the enzyme containing main mash will allow the enzymes to work quicker on the remaining starch in the decocted grist.

Now, if you are already getting ~100% starch conversion with your mash conditions (fine crush and sufficient mash time) then decoction will not improve your extraction.

Brew on

 

[day_trippr]

The "better extraction" often observed with decoction mashes is simply due to more complete gelatinization of the starch.

Correct - and thus the nth degree would depend on how much of the mash was actually decocted.
As for "100% extraction" I doubt that occurs very often in a home brew setting...

Cheers!

 

[DuncB]

Well, I'm only in for mouthfeel and rock hard foam. Mouthfeel actually isn't that important... So at the end it's the foam and that one can be easily measured and compared so bias is easy to get rid off in this specific case.

Could be spunding helping with tiny bubbles for the foam as well?

 

[Yesfan]

.........And anyone who tells you that to make a real, authentic-tasting Verrucktebock, you need to do a quintuple decoction while jumping up and down on one leg ...

Wtf man?! I thought we all did that. What's next? You all going to tell me you don't rub your bellies and pat your heads after each hop addition??

What a bunch of !!!

 

[Yesfan]

That's what I wanted to add as well. None of the so called tests brought the mash temp up into a range where glycoproteins are formed in a bigger amount. At the end glycoproteins are the foam factor from malt.

Another flaw in many tests is that they tried it in a hoppy and bitter beer. The increased bitterness increases also foam. So if the foam is already quite stable already, there's not much to gain in that respect.

Thanks for the tip, I will definitely try it in my next brew. If it works, I'll create a thread to debunk the debunking.

Same here. I'm one that likes the foamy head on a brew. Some of my beers have it, some don't. If adjusting/adding a mash temp is all that's needed, I'm all ears for suggestions. I'm all about those tiny bubbles....

 

[doug293cz]

Correct - and thus the nth degree would depend on how much of the mash was actually decocted.
As for "100% extraction" I doubt that occurs very often in a home brew setting...

Cheers!

Extraction % is a combination of conversion efficiency (how much of the starch is converted to soluble material - sugar, dextrin, proteins, etc.) and lauter efficiency (how much of the converted material is recovered from the mash.) Extraction % is the same thing as mash efficiency.

Extraction % = Mash Efficiency = Conversion Efficiency * Lauter Efficiency​

​

Lauter efficiency is always less than 100% due to liquid absorption by the spent grain, so mash efficiency is always less than 100%. 100% conversion efficiency is routinely obtained by many brewers, particularly those that crush very finely (often BIABers.)

Brew on

 

[40yr@HB]

Wtf man?! I thought we all did that. What's next? You all going to tell me you don't rub your bellies and pat your heads after each hop addition??

What a bunch of !!!

Might have to try that.

 

[40yr@HB]

I'm all for a head that sticks with a FG < 25% OG.
So if the extra time for a decoc step does it?
Worth it for me.

 

[hottpeper13]

My first decocted beer was a Check Pils and was a double. I scored 45 at 2017 NHC. What a long brew day! Let's try that with a single decoction; not the same beer. The only time I do a single one is when doughing in at 154* for my big bocks, this brings a step also to 172* for awesome head.

 

[dmtaylor]

My first decocted beer was a Check Pils and was a double. I scored 45 at 2017 NHC. What a long brew day! Let's try that with a single decoction; not the same beer. The only time I do a single one is when doughing in at 154* for my big bocks, this brings a step also to 172* for awesome head.

Awesome.

I myself am hesitant to credit decoction as being super important, but I'll admit, the best lager I ever made was in fact triple decocted. That was many years ago. My lagers since then have been hit or miss, usually pretty good but never as great as that one from years ago. Hmm............

 

[Bassman2003]

I have come to the realization that the only way to know is to start doing them. I will make it as easy as possible, but I want to know for me, if it is worth it or not.

 

[Bobby_M]

I've done maybe four decoction brews in 17 years and haven't liked any of them. I'm sure it's user error.

 

[40yr@HB]

What really helped mine was after 50F primary (FG < 25% OG), do a diacetyl rest for several days, at house temp (72F). Same container, no transfer.
That cleared out the butter bigtime.
Then transfer to serving keg.

 

[beersk]

If you are looking for "float a bottle cap on the foam" type head, 4% Carafoam and a 15 min rest at 72°C in your step mash regime will do it. The 4% Carafoam and glycoprotein rest will give you a dense rocky foam in spades.

Alright hold on. A regime is the Third Reich. What you're talking about is a REGIMEN.

Is decoction mashing making a comeback? What the hell is all this noise!

 

[day_trippr]

Seriously, in all my years here I've never seen so much traffic on the topic of decoction.
All the cool kids seem to be wanting to know about it lately....

Cheers! (...and "wth?" )

 

[40yr@HB]

:::having an Octoberfest Marzen::: with very little diacetyl btw.

 

[doug293cz]

What really helped mine was after 50F primary (FG < 25% OG), do a diacetyl rest for several days, at house temp (72F). Same container, no transfer.
That cleared out the butter bigtime.
Then transfer to serving keg.

:::having an Octoberfest Marzen::: with very little diacetyl btw.

What, if anything, do these have to do with the decoction discussion?

Brew on

 

[burtom]

My question is when you do decoction how thin a mash are you using? When I do it for flavor, I am basically boiling a pot of grain with just enough water to make the boil look like lava bubbles leaving craters when they surface and frequently lifting whole sections of the grain up as steam tries to come through.

 

[Dland]

Never did a decoction mash, have been able to achieve desired brews w simple mash in. But hardly surprising that a different mashing process would produce different results. I think it is cool there are so many avenues (or rabbit holes) we can go down to brew the beer we want to drink.

In any case, have read this thread through, and appreciate the mostly informative and friendly discourse. Amusing and edifying.

Also it is good to realize in any pursuit like this, for some the process can be as or more important than the results.

 

[40yr@HB]

Takes practice to avoid the over "over the top caramelly, malt and melanoiden laden beer" (huckdavidson above) and throw in the extra diacetyl from the malt. Difficult to get the flav just right with decoction.

 

[OleBrewing]

Seriously, in all my years here I've never seen so much traffic on the topic of decoction.
All the cool kids seem to be wanting to know about it lately....

Cheers! (...and "wth?" )

and i am over here thinking about i haven't been able to brew in over a year.

 

[dmtaylor]

What, if anything, do these have to do with the decoction discussion?

Brew on

Yeah... um... nothing.

 

[MaxStout]

Yeah... um... nothing.

Their AI bot needs some tweaking.

 

[hottpeper13]

It's my understanding that most of the enzymes are in the liquid portion of the mash so this is my take.
Using the big strainer I fill it and let the liquid drain then dump in decoction kettle. I add enough brewing liquor so stirring isn't hard and raise the temp to the next step,rest 10-20 min then boil for 20-30 min. The added water seems to make up for the evaporation from the boil.

 

[Bassman2003]

Interesting approach. With efficiency gains from the process, the odds of adding water to meet a gravity target are probably high, so why not add some new water to the decoction kettle and leave as much mash water in the mash.

 

[huckdavidson]

A Dutch oven works very well for boiling decoctions. I've stepped 10-12 lbs of grain using a 9 quart dutch oven though I'm sure a 5 - 5.5 quart would work as well. That is all, carry on.