Decoction is pointless with Highly Modified malts

[zoebisch01]

So,

I was chatting with the brewer at River Horse and I mentioned about decoction and he went into this whole thing about with today's malts being so highly modified that decoction is unnecessary. Either he didn't understand my point or there is something that I am not getting. I decoct to enhance melanoidins and also to obtain step mashing in my 5 gallon tun, the former being my main goal. He also was hinting at husk tannin extraction.

My experience has been that decoction is highly beneficial, especially at pulling out that really "wheaty flavor" from wheat recipes. It also did change my O'fest, and I liked the results much better than a single infusion. So this year, I am going to brew 2 O'fests. One is in the fermentor now, I bumped up the infusion really high to 157 and the second will be the same recipe only with decoction. At the culmination of this experiment (around September when we have O'fest) I will solicit tasting comments from my guests on the two which I will have side by side, blind. And I think I'll post a recipe for once, seeing that I have now officially made the recipe more than 3 times, which is kind of my philosophy in that I won't post a recipe until it is proven.

So while that is in the works, let's discuss your experiences with Decoction/ What say you?

[DrunkenSatyr]

I would agree that it is worthless in terms of the original idea. You no longer need multiple rests to convert your malts and since we have more advanced heating methods, not necessary. As for flavor, you can not duplicate that rich flavor IMO without it.

I have done about 8 beers with decoction and I love em. Always worth the extra work.

[marzen41]

for what ever reason the pro brewers i have talked to don,t think dicoction mashes do anything for the beer. i talked to one who said in class they tried a step mash and a decoction mash side by side and found no difference. IMHO that is pure bullshit ihave done both many times and there no way you get the same results a decoction mash will give. i really like decoction mashes for dopplebocks and hefe-wiezens

[zoebisch01]

The first year I brewed the O'fest, it was single infusion and it turned out great, but I wanted a more pronounced maltiness. After reading about the decoction I thought, "eh what do I have to lose". The first thing that hit me when sampling, which I recorded in my notes, was that the malt seemed to be amplified. I would really love to know if the Germans still utilize this technique. The side-by-side this year will be interesting.

[zoebisch01]

Ok so the two batches are brewed. Well one is fermenting now, the other is in secondary. One was 157 single infusion, the other was with 20 minutes p rest, 157 conversion ala decoction, and mashout. Sparge times were the same, but what was really interesting is my gravity on the decoction was 1.063 and the other one came out almost 7 points lower! This has me really wondering now. I'll have to check my notes to see if the decoction gave me a higher efficiency last time. I'll also compare the fg's.

[Evan!]

Did you mean "highly modified malts" in the thread title?

I'll agree that, for melanoidin production and a great malt-flavor backbone, decoction mashes are excellent. You know, though, I'd be curious to see not only a "decoction versus non-decoction" experiment, but also a "decoction versus melanoidin malt" one as well. Everyone's always said that a bit of melanoidin malt gives you the same result as a decoc, but I'm skeptical. I've used melanoidin malt plenty of times, but I've never done a side-by-side experiment to see if it lives up to the claims.

Personally, I've only done a full-on double decoction mash once or twice, just because it's a big PITA and it takes a while. Normally what I'll do is wait until the last 15 minutes or so of the mash sacch rest, make sure conversion is done with an iodine test, and then pull out a stiff portion and decoct that for the final 15 mins before adding it all back. That addition typically also acts as a mashout step as well, or at least a "make sure conversion is complete" step up to 157-158f. This way, I don't really end up adding much time to my brew day, and I still get to reap the benefits of maillard reactions. That's what I did on Friday with my hefe---and I tend to do it with any beer that wants a pronounced malt flavor.

[Evan!]

Originally Posted by zoebisch01

Ok so the two batches are brewed. Well one is fermenting now, the other is in secondary. One was 157 single infusion, the other was with 20 minutes p rest, 157 conversion ala decoction, and mashout. Sparge times were the same, but what was really interesting is my gravity on the decoction was 1.063 and the other one came out almost 7 points lower! This has me really wondering now. I'll have to check my notes to see if the decoction gave me a higher efficiency last time. I'll also compare the fg's.

I would surmise that the protein rest helped your OG by wetting the grain ahead of time and perhaps rinsing more starches from the grain. That's just a guess---I too ended up with ~85% efficiency the first time I did a real-deal double decoction. My stupid mistake was relying on the starch test, though. Little did I know: boiling the grains somewhat destroys the husks, and so you end up with a bunch of little pieces of husk in your mash liquor. I kept taking iodine tests every 15 minutes, and after like 2 hours, I said, dude, there's no freakin' way that my starches haven't converted yet. Found out from tbh the next day that iodine tests are unreliable after decoction. And via the 2 hour mash, I ended up with crazy efficiency. So, going back to your point, I think, between the boiling of the grains and the protein rest, you ended up just pulling more sugars out of the grain body, sort of like if you were stirring the mash the whole time. That's my guess. I could be perfectly wrong.

[zoebisch01]

Originally Posted by Evan!

Did you mean "highly modified malts" in the thread title?

Awww yeah. Doh!

[zoebisch01]

Originally Posted by Evan!

I would surmise that the protein rest helped your OG by wetting the grain ahead of time and perhaps rinsing more starches from the grain. That's just a guess---I too ended up with ~85% efficiency the first time I did a real-deal double decoction. My stupid mistake was relying on the starch test, though. Little did I know: boiling the grains somewhat destroys the husks, and so you end up with a bunch of little pieces of husk in your mash liquor. I kept taking iodine tests every 15 minutes, and after like 2 hours, I said, dude, there's no freakin' way that my starches haven't converted yet. Found out from tbh the next day that iodine tests are unreliable after decoction. And via the 2 hour mash, I ended up with crazy efficiency. So, going back to your point, I think, between the boiling of the grains and the protein rest, you ended up just pulling more sugars out of the grain body, sort of like if you were stirring the mash the whole time. That's my guess. I could be perfectly wrong.

Quite possible. It's funny because that was the same thing I did the first time as well, testing a million times and going really long.

[zoebisch01]

Originally Posted by Evan!

That's what I did on Friday with my hefe---and I tend to do it with any beer that wants a pronounced malt flavor.

Have you done this with Wheat before? The reason I ask is because I am fully convinced the decoction is what yields the "really wheaty flavor" found in German Hefe's. I did this with my 'Americanized' Wiezenbock (a decoction that is) and for the first time since I have been making any type of Wheat beer I finally found that flavor I was looking for.