Decoction advice

You need to make sure your mash pH is low enough to begin with, which would generally be in the 5.2-5.4 range with acid additions if/as needed. That way you won’t get the tannin extraction, which usually occurs at, I believe, somewhere around a pH of 6.0 or so, and above 170 degrees F. If you control the mash pH, the temperature isn’t much of an issue.[/quote]

Ok, I can buy that if you adjust you mash ph into proper range before you do a decoction than your not gonna get tannins. But people have been doing decoctions since before they even new about ph and I’m pretty sure that the beers weren’t loaded with tannins.

Ok, I can buy that if you adjust you mash ph into proper range before you do a decoction than your not gonna get tannins. But people have been doing decoctions since before they even new about ph and I’m pretty sure that the beers weren’t loaded with tannins.[/quote]

Original question asked and answered… Not gonna get into a “discussion” about how brewers historically avoided tannin extraction (busy brewing at the moment). I’m sure they had it figured out, lack of chemistry degrees notwithstanding…

No, it’s the same. As long as your mash pH is below 6, you’ll be fine.

Ok, I can buy that if you adjust you mash ph into proper range before you do a decoction than your not gonna get tannins. But people have been doing decoctions since before they even new about ph and I’m pretty sure that the beers weren’t loaded with tannins.[/quote]

No offense, but how do you know what historical beers were like? They may have been very nasty for all we know.

Now Denny… surely you’re just teasing us since you were clearly around at about the same time beer was invented.

Always the joker, you!

:stuck_out_tongue:

Now Denny… surely you’re just teasing us since you were clearly around at about the same time beer was invented.

Always the joker, you!

:stuck_out_tongue: [/quote]

NO HE DI’INT!

I think what was done historically since they didn’t know about ph but they would know what good beer tasted like so different regions brewed only the type of beer that tasted good using the water they had. That’s why you had so many regional beers. They didn’t brew every different style like brewers do now.

+1… Or they figured out how to treat their water appropriately to brew a different style, such as pre-boiling Munich water and using acidulated malt for a helles, or brewing with the water as-is for a dunkel.

What I was getting at is that I think the definition of “good beer” may have been very different historically.

+1… Or they figured out how to treat their water appropriately to brew a different style, such as pre-boiling Munich water and using acidulated malt for a helles, or brewing with the water as-is for a dunkel.[/quote]

What makes you think acidulated malt existed then?

I would think acidulated malt or at least sour mash was around as long time no ?

Ok, I can buy that if you adjust you mash ph into proper range before you do a decoction than your not gonna get tannins. But people have been doing decoctions since before they even new about ph and I’m pretty sure that the beers weren’t loaded with tannins.[/quote]

No offense, but how do you know what historical beers were like? They may have been very nasty for all we know.[/quote]

I don’t. I just figure that if people have been drinking beer for thousands of years that it would have at least tasted half way decent pretty early on.

Not necessarily a good assumption, for several reason. I won’t claim to know what historical beers tasted like either, but I’ve read enough on the subject to know that tastes (how people define what is “good”) have evolved drastically. Perhaps foods provide the clearest examples. Look up “authentic” or recreated period recipes for what the pilgrims served at the first Thanksgiving feast, and tell me how many in your family would dig into that if you served it next November.
Before porter became the standard for British beers in the 18th century, blended beers were common. The blend consisted new and “stale” or aged beers. The beers were aged in barrels or kegs, and were almost certainly contaminated with Brett. So the definition of a good beer back then was one with significant flavors that we associate with wild brews today - which most modern beer drinkers wouldn’t touch.

And then there is the second reason you shouldn’t assume. Going back further, it seems pretty clear that people didn’t drink beers just because they tasted good. Medieval Europeans drank it because it didn’t make you sick the way water did. And many ancient peoples likely drank it just for the alcohol. Read up on the disgusting things indigenous peoples consume to get a buzz. And the funny thing is, that isn’t always a matter of tastes or cultural differences. Many of those people will agree that what they are doing is disgusting, but it is the price they have to pay to get high.

Sour mash, probably. Acidulated malt, no. I remember reading somewhere that it was invented as a way to work around the restrictions in the Reinheitsgebot and allow brewers to drop the very long (and thus costly) acid rest from the mash.

How long ago are we talking. The german purity laws date back to the 1500’s

Yeah, I guess I was thinking couple hundered years ago, not medieval times. That’s the problem with discussing “historical” things - it’s a pretty broad term. But I’ll admit, I might not know what I’m talking about.

Not really sure, I was thinking 19th or 20th century, but it could be earlier.

The Reinheitsgebot dates back to 1487.

Now that’s back in the day

I gotta admit I kinda like it when Denny plays devil’s advocate… especially when its not with me! :lol:

I’ve never done a decoction. I’ve used melanodin malt and that stuff is STRONG. I would suggest using it with a very light hand.