Decoction?

[John Sand]

I'm thinking of brewing a Marzen/Oktoberfest type. The recipe calls for triple decoction, requiring an hours long mash with numerous rests. While I respect tradition, I don't want to do that anymore than saving house yeast on a wooden paddle. What are your practices? Experience? Theories? The recipe is Munich/Vienna/Pilsner. My thought is some kind of single decoction, in the middle of the mash. I plan to ferment on the coolest part of the basement floor using 34/70 yeast. I've read some bits about pseudo-decoctions, but I thought I'd gather some ideas here. Thank you for your support.

[mashani]

A true triple decoction will increase the amount of melanoidin / malt character in the final product giving you a more malty result then just a single decoction or straight up infusion mash, do to the extended boiling and concentration. And the step mash has some other benefits due to the rests. But those rests are not *necessary* with more highly modified malts. They are potentially advantageous if using under modified European malts though.

A pseudo decoction like I do sometimes is actually boiling what amounts to a single decoction done *post mash* for longer amount of time then you would boil each decoction in a normal multi-step decoction mash, turning it into a thicker darker syrup. This more caramelized and melanoidin enriched syrup when added back to the main boil makes it *seem* more like you did a multiple decoction mash even though it was only one decoction and done post mash. And it doesn't increase the overall boil time as you boil it side by side with the wort - it's not really a decoction that goes back into the mash - it goes back into the boiling wort.

And this is kind of a matter of eyeballing it. It's like making candi syrup - you boil it until it has the character you want. You have to pull out drops and let them cool on a plate and sample to taste it and get a feeling for what it will do. If you want to duplicate your recipe later you have to keep track of volume and temperature exactly. You can pull small samples, ***let them cool on a plate***!!! and then give it a little taste and see how it's going and then get a feel for how it will turn out in future batches by how it tastes at the point you add it, vs. some other time where it tastes mellower or stronger. And get a feel for how it will adjust color. But that's as much art as science and takes trial and error if you want to duplicate later. That said, unless you burn it you won't make bad beer. Just might not be making exactly the same thing next time.

It is not the *same*. But it has a similar effect. It will potentially be a bit sweeter and have more caramel character then a true decoction depending on how long you go.

Another easy way to get a similar effect would be to sub out some of your light munich for a darker munich or a melanoidin Malt. Or to simply increase the amount of Munich and decrease the amount of pilsner. This will give you a drier beer then a pseudo decoction especially if you mash at lower temps. But not as complex.

None will give you identical results to a true triple decoction, but all will give you good beer.

I will use some dark munich or similar in dubbels and quads in order to simulate a triple decoction mash to some extent. I don't do a pseudo decoction for those because it tends to sweeten them up more then I might want. I like the pseudo decoction in Bocks and strong Scottish beers though.

Did that help?

[John Sand]

Thanks Mash, that helps a lot. Perhaps I can perform an abbreviated triple decoction, while doing a one hour mash. I suspect that the original triple/step mash had more to do with under-modified malts and uncertain temperatures than with flavor. But it might be wiser to use your simplified method. It's just the sort of process I was seeking when I posted.

[D_Rabbit]

While living in CT my Brew Club, Krausen Commandos, did a test on whether or not decoction added anything to the brews anymore. The modification of the grains has really made this a non-essential part of a brew day. We brewed a batch sparge, single decoction, double decoction, and triple decoction all in one day to try and determine if there was a difference.

You can read the full article here, http://www.krausencommandos.com/. Go to the press section of the website. I'm on the far right of the photo

Basically the findings came down to it really doesn't add enough to make it worth the effort.

[John Sand]

Thanks Rabbit. There seems to be a divide on this. There certainly are tests that show no difference. But there are brewers who swear that their beer is not the same without it. I suspect that it has to do with the length and strength of the boil. I have unintentionally over-cooked two batches, both LME. In spite of stirring, some extract sank to the bottom and caramelized. Both failed to attenuate as expected. One had a rich, mildly sweet flavor that I have been unable to reproduce with crystal malt. The other was burnt. It may, of course, be possible to replicate that flavor with the right crystal. But I think I want to try a decoction to see. I will read the article though.

[John Sand]

Okay, I read the article. And clearly the beers were different. While the experiment may not have resulted in consistent improvement from decoction, one of the decoction batches was deemed the best. That improvement was judged by your club not to be worth the extra effort. I may come to the same conclusion, I'll let you know.
I've also read that step mashes, including decoction, can lead to loss of body, due to the protein rest.

[D_Rabbit]

Keep us posted. It is always great to hear other peoples stories based on their trials. Good luck!

[mashani]

I can tell you that many of the best strong dark commercial Belgian beers and German bocks are still brewed with a triple decoction mash. Of course they are also brewed with less modified European continental malt as well, not highly modified American style malts. You look at some of the homebrew ABT 12 clone type recipes, and they have all the special B and carawhatnot and all sorts of other stuff in them, and I guarantee that the real thing is nothing but pilsner/pale malt/candi syrup and a triple decoction mash of some sort.

In some of the beers the decoctions are boiled for a much longer amount of time then simply bringing them up to boiling and adding immediately back to the mash to increase temperature like many home brewers do when they do a decoction. The exact amount of time and amount of concentration per decoction would be "brewers secret", they aren't going to talk about it or tell you about it, they will just say it was a decoction and leave it at that. But an extended boil of the decoction, like the pseudo-decoction can certainly change the character and can make your beer different then someone else's, even with the same ingredients.

I do not see anything in the linked article about how long you actually boiled the decoctions. But if the club simply did a conversion rest and brought it to a boil for a short time and added it back in instead of boiling each decoction for 20-40 minutes before adding them back in, you didn't really experience the level of difference a decoction can make. And some commercial decoctions are boiled for that long for sure.

That's why when you do the pseudo-decoction you are really concentrating the wort - you are trying to get that same type of "bang" out of it.

[braukasper]

Another way that is to just use a darker garde of Munich. I use Munich 30L a lot, it is at the end of the base malts so I would not rely on it to convert other malts. You can brew a very tasty brew just using the Munich 30L.

[The_Professor]

I'm posting to this a bit late.

I was interested in doing a decoction at one time - to make an "authentic" German beer.

When I started researching it I ran across some good info by (at HBT) The Kaiser.

He does a series of videos as well.



And is also on May 27, 2010 - Kai's Take on Decoction wherein he says there really isn't much difference using the decoction.

After that I wasn't very interested to try it.

[John Sand]

Thanks Prof. I hope to brew this before the weather warms too much. But I am building my kegerator, and I have boat work to do too.

[mashani]

I looked at Kai's stuff, and it also appears that he only did short boils. So I'll just mention again that if you did 30-40 minute boils that truly concentrated each decoction, you should notice a bigger difference. Before there were lots of specialty malts available, this would have been one of the ways folks could truly differentiate their beers while still using a simple grain bill.

The biggest ? is do you really want to spend another 2 hours doing that, or if modern specialty grains / Munich / and/or pseudo-decoction will get you close enough to what you want.

[John Sand]

I agree Mash. I'm not sure it is something I'll do twice, but I want to try it once. I also plan a small batch, 2.5 gallons. That will make much of the work lighter and easier. Heating and cooling will be quicker. So some extra time on process will be balanced by the smaller batch. If it works well, I may try a larger batch with a pseudo-decoction.