[quote=“Denny”][quote=“deliusism1”][quote=“Denny”]Decocting a stout? Are you guys kidding?
And did everybody overlook the obvious solution? Just use less hops. Geez, you guys are making a simple thing really complicated![/quote]
With all due respect, don’t knock it 'til you try it. Lagers aren’t the only beers that can benefit from the decoction treatment. And from what I can see in his recipe, his hopping rate is already pretty darn low- around 20 IBUs or so by my calculation- so he definitely needs to try something other than just lowering the hopping rate, because an overabundance of hops doesn’t appear to be the problem. I listed several options for him to consider, anyway. The decoction mash idea just sort of sprang out of a side discussion. It’s not something I would just up and recommend for this style of beer ordinarily; but like I said, I’ve used the method with good results for a stout in the past. I’ve read of other people doing the same thing, too. And just to clarify, I’m not talking about a multiple-step decoction mash like I would use for a pilsner or something like that. I’m just talking about starting the mash in the beta amylase range and giving it one decoction to bring the mash temp up to the alpha amylase range. It’s just a 2-step mash with one decoction; nothing overly complicated or time-consuming at all. For someone who might be interested in experimenting with decoction mashing, this simple 2-step method can work well for a very wide range of beer styles, and it can give you an idea of the kind of flavor that can be achieved with the method, without spending all day doing it. I’m not directing this advice at you per se, as I’m sure you’ve done plenty of decoction mashing with all the years you’ve been making beer. I just happen to be an advocate of the method, and I recommend it to others who may not have considered trying it yet.[/quote]
FWIW, I have done MANY decoction and step mashes and I have yet to find a reason to do them other than curiosity about whether it will finally make a difference. Stouts have been brewed without decoction for a long time. And while anyone is free to try anything they like with their beer, it might be worthwhile to think about why stouts traditionally don’t use decoction.[/quote]
Your point is well taken. I just like to experiment, and when I did a decoction mash on my stout, friends who drank it thought it was an excellent beer, and I was pretty pleased with it myself. And for the record, I have brewed MANY beers in my time that I thought were just plain bad and not worth sharing with other people, so I’m not just putting that out there to pat myself on the back, believe me. You have no idea how many batches of beer I dumped right down the drain when I was a newbie brewer.
Ok. This has been awesome. Watching a bunch of veterans battle it out is pretty helpful believe it or not. My question is, can someone explain why a decoction is better suited for certain styles and not for for others? How does it differ from a 2 step mash like noted before? I would search it bet to be honest, reading about the differing styles and opinions has been educational.
Well, apparently I’m the oddball here because I’m encouraging the practice of decoction mashing for beer styles that aren’t traditionally given that treatment, so you may take my words with a grain of salt. I’ll sum it up the best I can, though. Decoction mashing is a process that was traditionally used for malts that were what we would call undermodified, which were usually German or Czech in origin. I don’t want to go into any great depth about what the term “unermodified” means, but suffice to say that those grains more or less required a fairly lengthy process to really extract all of their flavor compounds and fermentable sugars, as opposed to grains of the more well-modified types, like British and American pale ale malts, which have pretty much always been more amenable to a simple single-temperature infusion mash. In recent years, almost all base malts on the market have become well-modified, thus the need for decoction mashing has become questionable enough in the commercial brewing industry that the process has become more or less obsolete from a cost efficiency standpoint.
In certain circles, the practice of decoction mashing has retained a certain cult status, kept alive by stubborn devotees who refuse to give up the practice for reasons of their own. As far as what styles of beer are appropriate for decoction mashing, I think it’s safe to say that almost all of the modern (early 19th century and beyond) styles of German beer were once brewed with that method, even weissbeers that used a large proportion of well-modified wheat malt in the grist. Whether this is solely because of the efficiency of the decoction process (which is arguably higher, even with well-modified malts) or the flavors obtained by it, is not entirely certain.
But it’s easy to confuse a style of beer for the grain that’s used to make it, so the take-away here should be that a beer’s candidacy for decoction mashing is not so much a matter of beer style per se, as much as the type of base malt that the beer is made with. That having been said, it’s getting very hard to even find undermodified malt in today’s market, so whether or not the practice of decoction mashing is really something that’s worth keeping alive is a matter of some debate in today’s beer geek world, although the ones who continue to promote it are becoming more and more of a minority. Even in Germany, quite a lot of breweries have abandoned the practice and moved on to simple infusion mashing.I don’t know how well I’ve put all that information together, but I hope I’ve answered at least some of your questions.
Just to modify what deliusism explained. Decoction is often talked about as more than it really is, and often when people make statements about decoction what they should be calling it is multi-step mashing. Decoction is one possible technique used to implement multi-step mashing.
Multi-step mashing was developed as a way to get more predictable results from the less-than-predictably malted grains that were available in the old days. Go back even 50 years and most malt available was less than fully modified, and varied considerably from batch to batch. A complex, multi-step mash regiment was used to increase the efficiency and repeatability of the results.
Decoction mashing was a technique some smart German came up with to make multi-step mashing more consistent before the invention of the thermometer. It gives you exact control over mash temperature using nothing more than a bucket.
Years back, I did a study of decoction. The result was that there were more blind tasters who preferred undecocted beers or had no preference than there were who preferred decocted beers. Results are here, starting on pg. 25…http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content … nyConn.pdf . I still sometimes do decoctions to see if I missed something and if maybe they do make a positive difference. So far I haven’t come to that conclusion.
I am with Denny on decoctions and tried them myself. Rebuilt is right, no need with modern malts. That said, one little nugget I picked up from Kai since the last decoction I tried is to ensure the pH of the mash is no lower than 5.7. Might try that someday when I feel nostalgic and want to pay extra for floor malted undermodified malt, and I have extra propane and another 2 hours to add to brew day. :lol:
I can’t wrap my mind around why a Hockhurz schedule could be superior to a single infusion… Only thing I can think of, is that it might be possible that your pH was higher than it should and the extra step lowered it into range. I wish I could do Hockhurz to SHORTEN the mash time, like 15 and 15…
I agree with Wahoo with 2 types of crystal, but also keep in mind with a darker grist your pH might go a little lower and that can dry things up too. I would be shooting for 5.6-5.7 on an oatmeal stout.
The hockhurz mash allows you to get rests at both Beta and Alpha. I believe the idea is that you can get a more fermentable wort with more body. A single infusion only allows one or the other.
So you say, it tastes great AND it’s less filling??? In theory, if you are resting at the temperatures where the enzymes are most active, the reaction should be FASTER, right?
To OP I would say 10% crystal or more would be appropriate for an oatmeal stout.
[quote=“zwiller”]So you say, it tastes great AND it’s less filling??? In theory, if you are resting at the temperatures where the enzymes are most active, the reaction should be FASTER, right?
To OP I would say 10% crystal or more would be appropriate for an oatmeal stout.[/quote]
Yes, the reactions are faster when the mash is conducted in the temp ranges where the enzymes are most active. That’s why I only hold the mash for 45 minutes instead of 60 at each rest. Personally, I think the 2-step rest is especially appropriate for an oatmeal stout because of the balance of sweetness and dryness it can achieve.
The hockhurz mash is typically quoted to take one hour of rest time, divided up between the optimum beta and alpha temperatures. That means in total it would be longer, as you need to get the mash from one temperature to the next as well as rest it.
But my take on it is it’s a method to give better control over the fermentability vs. body of the finished beer. It is easier to precisely control the rest time than the rest temperature. So 15 minutes at around 140 followed by 45 minutes at around 158 will give a beer with a lot of body, whereas trying to get the same thing by hold at precisely 154 for an hour is more difficult.
Yep, I never really made a great dark beer until I got my pH in this range. 5.3 always seemed a little thin. The higher pH gave a much better mouthfeel. A bit of pickling lime (1/2 tsp or so) works great with my very soft water.
I can’t say that I have. All I know is that I definitely get better mash efficiency with a step mash process than a single temp infusion mash, and I’ve rarely been let down on the flavor of a beer made with that process, either.
Neither have I Denny (ya ball buster). I have never been disappointed with any beer I have made and I agree that I have seen an increase in efficiency when done. I only do a hockhurz mash on certain beers like ofest and other lagers.
I once did back to back hefes with same recipe decocted and infusion mashed, and although I didn’t taste them side by side, there was no appreciable difference to me, so I gave up on decoctions. That said, I won’t argue hochkurz will get you more efficiency. I consistently get 80-85% single infusion batch sparged so I don’t fret too much about efficiency. (really wish I could use a single batch sparge but it does not work well me for some reason) It is interesting that Kai reports that while most German brewers are moving away from decoction mashes, they are infusion mashing hochkurz. From what I understand probrewers are getting 90%+ and I don’t think anyone will argue why they would employ a process that maximizes efficiency. To me, the 10-15% bump isn’t worth it at home…
I can’t say that I have. All I know is that I definitely get better mash efficiency with a step mash process than a single temp infusion mash, and I’ve rarely been let down on the flavor of a beer made with that process, either.[/quote]
I can’t say that I have. All I know is that I definitely get better mash efficiency with a step mash process than a single temp infusion mash, and I’ve rarely been let down on the flavor of a beer made with that process, either.[/quote]
What’s your average efficiency each way?[/quote]
I haven’t actually done a decoction mash for quite some time because it’s just rare that I ever have that much time on my hands any more (yeah, I know…after all the talking I’ve done about it, and I haven’t even done it in a long time :oops: ), but when I did, I usually got a little over 80% percent mash efficiency with a pretty simple system. With a single temp infusion mash, I usually get between 65% and 75% efficiency, depending on the mash temp. With a 2-step infusion, I pretty much always get at least 75% efficiency, and a few months ago, I actually reached about 88% efficiency with that method (the highest I’ve ever gotten), but that was when I was unwillingly holding the mash at a steady temp for a very long time due to a stubborn stuck sparge. And for me, higher mash efficiency usually equals better flavor in my beer, for whatever reason. The only time I ever settle for low mash efficiency is when I’m making a Scotch ale and I do a single temp infusion mash in the alpha amylase range, at around 156-158 dF. I’ve heard some people say that mash temp has nothing to do with mash efficiency, but that’s never been the case in my experience.
In theory, if you are resting at the temperatures where the enzymes are most active, the reaction should be FASTER, right?