Decoction Mashing

[phettebs]

Rather than hijack an old thread (The one about Bohemian Pilsner) I thought I'd start a new one. Over here in the states, in homebrewing circles anyway, there seems to be two distinct camps regarding decoction mashing: 1) it makes ALL the difference in the world to the flavor, color, etc of the end product and 2) makes no noticeable difference at all and you are simply wasting time in which you could be drinking beer!

Has anyone done a side-by-side comparison with a decocted batch vs. an infusion batch of an otherwise identical beer? I have only done two decoction-mashed batches myself so I am not an expert. Additionally, they were completely separate beers and the first time I had ever brewed the style.

I'm not trying to make a decision on whether or not to decoct. Like I said, I've done it and I found it to be a lot of work. I'm just interested in others' observations on the subject because it seems like such a contentious subject, at least on this side of the pond.

-baz

 

[mysterio]

Decocted a few batches but never done a side by side. However, I have brewed the same recipe (hefeweizen) a year apart, one with a decoction. I can't see any good reason to do it personally but that's not the point of the thread I noticed zero difference. I boiled a single decoction for about 15 mins.

Again I've heard knowledgeable people swear it makes the difference if you want to win a competition, so I don't totally discount it. I just think it's a lot of work for marginal/no gain.

 

[markp]

I've done a bit of reading on the subject, as I'm going to brew a pilsner in the next few weeks - need to sort my temp control on the 'fridge though first.

My interpretation is that the decoctions were/are used to overcome high nitrogen content in poorly modified malts.
The flavour aspect can supposedly be covered with the addition of modern specialst malts. I'm not experienced enough to know if this is true however.

Most of the modern malts are well modified these days and will be okay in a single infusion. Even the Bohemian pils malt I have for my brew only requires one temperature rise (thanks Aleman :) ).....and this can be achieved by adding hot liquor to a stiffish mash as long as you have a large enough tun.

 

[Good Ed]

I think it depends on what malts you are using, it was done in the old days because the malts weren't so modified; personally I wouldn't see it as extra work if it impoves the brew, but then that is the question. Again personally, I like a good malt profile, but then that's the beauty of brewing, each to their own. :thumb:

I've only done one batch of Bohemian Pilsener with one step mashing, it's now in the shed and praying for cold temperatures :pray: , but it tastes really good, if a bit dry for the style.

 

[Aleman]

I did spend a lot of time brewing (like three years) the same recipe over and over trying to clone pilsner urquell (Which was quite dumb really as the beer I was testing against in the UK (bottled) was not the same beer I had on the brewery tap in Plzen) and several times compared single infusion mashed versions against single double and triple decocted versions. Decoction mashed beers did have that extra 'something'. A better mouthfeel, a silky body, increased head formation/retention and 'more' maltiness. . . . Most of these were not present when doing a Infusion stepped mash.

When I came to my senses, I started messing around with recipe formulations, adding Munich and melanoidin malts, and even (shock Horror) a touch of wheat malt or raw wheat :shock: I got a lot of the benefits of decoction without the work. Then I read one of the Fix Books (Think is was the Analysis one) which said that beers made from a wort with an excessive thermal loading during the boil (Evaporation Rate>20%) presented as a beer that had been decocted even though it was infusion mashed. ( :hmm: Split a wort time ) I then tried splitting a wort into two, boiled one very hard, and the other was just gently simmered for 2-3 hours (as they do/did in Plzen). Sure enough the Hard boiled version had much of the characteristics of a decocted version.

So what does this mean? Yes decocted beers do taste different to the same recipe infusion mashed, and it can have a significant effect on the beer. However, the same effects can be achieved with an infusion mash by using a slightly different gain bill, and boiling harder than usual.

For time reasons I tend to use the modified grain bill approach nowadays, sometimes combined with a step mash sometimes not. . . .And it would only be in a side by side comparison that the effects would be noticeable.

 

[phettebs]

Thanks for all the great replies. I will probably try a few more decoctions at some point but I'm inclined to agree that it may not be worth the effort. If you make your living by brewing Pilsner Urquell, that's one thing.

Aleman, thanks for that detailed analysis. You probably already know this but over here one of the biggest naysayers to decoctions is Denny Conn. He agrees with you. ;-)

Happy brewing! :

 

[Aleman]

One of the most telling 'converts' is Greg Noonan who wrote the book on Decoction Mashing

 

[phettebs]

Wow, I didn't know that. I do have his "Bock" brewing book and he does talk a lot about the necessity of decocting for a proper bock beer. Then again, that was written in the early 90s I think. ;-)