floor malted pils and decoction

This is becoming more and more interesting as we proceed! Both Kellyst and myself are very much aware of a noticeable difference in some beers brewed using a decoction rather than an infusion type of brewing process (involving melanoidins) yet both you and @pweiss909 and Kai Troester cannot detect any nticeable difference. Both John Palmer and Jamil Zainasheff also seem quite aware of the melanoidin flavours that contribute from a maillard reaction. So some are aware, while others are not.

This tends to indicate that our taste/offactory senses must be significantly different. As I mentioned, the difference for me, is not even subtle, but incredibly different, so much so, that I crave beers that contain melanoidin. To me, the melanoidin effect on my taste/offactory senses is acute, and I would almost put the melanoidin 'taste' as an almost completely separate category, such as the gerneral categories of bitterness, sourness or sweetness. For me, it is none of these. In the past, I used to really like some beers over others, not having any understanding of maillard production at the time, and it's only in hindsight, that almost all of the beers beers I liked in the past where made through a decoction process. Even the beer that you recommended to me (Bohemian Pilsner) contains a lot of that melanoidin character which must have developed during the decoction process (I'm drinking it now as I write, and enjoying it immensely). As an aside, I'm curious as to why you make this beer using the laborious decoction process if an infusion mash seems to make no difference to you taste-wise?

Thus, I strongly tend to think that the issue is not whether or not there is any definitive difference between an infusion mash or a decoction mash, but rather whether there is such an incredibly significant difference between our taste and olfactory senses that such an issue can never be definitively settled for all. It's not a question of science at all, or who's right or wrong, but an almost philosophical question about our perceptible taste levels. I never before realized how incredibly different we all are in terms of even basic taste and olfactory senses, and now I can understand why there are so many heated disputes about the strong preferences of certain flavours in various beers or styles over others.

As such, I now understand why this whole issue of the importance of melanoidin in certain styles of beer has not been resolved. If someone is not even physically capable of detecting these incredible (to me) tastes, then that person would already be highly biased against the results of any study which measures the impact of melanoidins on various styles. Thus maybe the question of letting Brulosophy study this is mote.

It also brings into question the validity of beer judges. There must be judges who cannot detect melanoidins at all and those who can. There must be judges whose taste senses enjoy very high bitterness and those who enjoy a much lower level of bitterness, those who really enjoy sour beers and those who do not, etc. Thus each already brings in a huge bias in terms of judging beers, based on their own physical senses, which seem to not only differ marginally from others, but perhaps much more than we ever realized.

 

I respect what the Brulosphy folks do. I also like the stuff coming out of the Experimental Brewing podcast, and I liked the BYO/Basic Brewing experiments from previous years. I find myself trying to pick holes at these studies but as more similar studies get done, more confidence will be built.

I do wish the podcasts and articles that discuss these experiments would not worry so much about the statistics; I have yet to find them particularly compelling. If John (@OldBrewer) tastes the difference between decocted and non-decocted beers but 12 out of 15 people failed to detect the difference in a triangle taste, that doesn't mean John is tasting something that doesn't exist. If John did the test himself 15 different times and 12 out of 15 times failed to detect a difference, well, that might be telling. Ultimately, we learn more through replication than through statistics. My other beef with statistics is that they have been my professional bogeyman on enough occasions that I would be happy to do without them in my hobby, except perhaps for raising the occasional glass of stout in salute to A Student and his t-test.

 

You are still misreading my post. I am not saying I do not detect a difference. I am saying I have not compared my decocted beers to my non-decocted ones in a reliable and sufficiently frequent manner and am therefore reluctant to draw conclusions.

Of course, Malliard reactions are well-documented; I'm not denying their existance. But being able to detect the Malliard products that developed in your decoction mash against the background of Malliard products that were present when the malt left the maltster are two different things. I am not skeptical of your conclusions that you can detect it. I am simply not ready to say whether I ca

 

Thanks for the clarification. All I can say is that I have now done several comparisons with brewing the very same Pilsner recipe with and without adding melanoidin malt, and also varying the amount of melanoidin malt. I think I can safely say that I fully recognize the uniqueness that the melanodin malt adds, and how it changes with the amount added.

In terms of using a decoction mashing process, I admit that I have only done it once, but with a similar, but slightly different pilsner recipe using some of the same pilsner malts. I can say with some confidence, that I recognized a similar "melanoidin" character in the result, although it definitely was a little different. Thus I suspect that adding melanoidin malt is definitely a little different than adding melanoidin only through the decoction process. Likely, since there are numerous different sugars and amino acids involved in the process, the combinations are somewhat different when adding melanoidin malt as opposed to doing a decoction.

It should be noted that melanoidins can also be produced during the boiling process. The harder and longer the boil, the more melanoidin products that are obtained (the vitality of the melanoidins also play a role during cooling of the wort depending on the amount of oxidiation). However, the concentration of the melanoidins are apparently relatively low compared to the amount produced during the decoction process. Also, I generally always boil my wort for the same length of time (about 1 hour and 15 minutes). Therefore I can basically rule out the boiling process when comparing the overall amount of melanoidin in the final product.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that adding a significant amount of Melanoidin Malt to a beer wouldn't taste different than the same beer without it. Melanoidin Malt is a fairly highly kilned malt. Of course it tastes different than pilsner malt and other malts.

What some people doubt is whether people can reliably tell the difference between a decocted beer made without melanoidin malt and a non-decocted beer with an equivalent amount of melanoidin malt subbed in. Personally, I'd be willing to bet that in triangle testing a difference would be detected, if for no other reason than that it might be pretty hard to dial-in the equivalent amount of melanoidin malt to use, and also that fact that decoction van be a pretty difficult/messy (and therefore possibly inconsistent) process. Preference is another matter though, and that to me would be the more interesting study. I wonder if there would statistically be a strong preference for one method over the other.

I'm worried that you are still equating "Melanoidin Malt" with "Melanoidins" (which every malt and every beer contain).

 

Again, I have only done one decoction mash, and as mentioned, I found that the amount of 'melanoidin' did not quite match that of the amount I generally add to a Pilsner. I have made Pilsners with about that amount before, and, based only on this one decoction, I can say that the 'taste' of the melanodin (and/or other maillard products) was definitely more complex than that which I obtained using only melanoidin malt. More samples would definitely be preferable before I could make a definite comparison.

No, I don't think at at all that I'm equating "melnoidin malt" with "melanoidins. I realize that most malts contain different degrees of melanoidins, although barely detectable, but that melanoidin malt likely contains more than any other specialty malt. I also realize that melanoidins can be created during the boiling process (especially hard and long boils). Melanodons are created during high temprature and low moisture conditions. But these levels in general malts are much lower than what can be obtained during the decoction process or from melanoidin or other aromatic malts such as Munich malt. I feel that I now have a very good handle on what this 'melanoidin' taste is like, having experimented with it now for years to get just the taste I desire. "Melanoidin" itself comprises various elements including some tincture elements as well as flavour elements.

 

Not sure why it would be a "messy/inconsistent process" for brewers who have slurry pumps. Would be no more messy or inconsistent to dial in how much mash to pump over to a decoction kettle in order to hit a desired mash temp than it would be to pump over sparge water from an HLT to hit a mash-out temp.

 

Why do you think "melanoidin" malt contains more melanoidins than any other specialty malt? Is it the name?

I'd wager that if one measured the total melanoidin compounds in every malt and plotted the result against their color, there would be a pretty good correlation. I could be wrong, but if I had to bet, that's the side I would take. (Though crystal malts might need their own separate curve.)

 

I don't disagree there. But I suspect most home brewers don't have them.

 

Why would you compare the amount of melanoidins by colour? Colour is only one of many components of melaodins, and doesn't contribute to taste, as far as I know. I'm only concerned about the taste, not the colour. Also, I have used Munich malt before, and didn't detect anywhere near the amount of melanodin as I did in melanoidin malt. It's unfortunate that there seems to be no comparison of these specialty malts in terms of the percentage of melanoidins, if there is such a measure.

 

My apologies if we deviated somewhat from your original question and weren't able to come up with any definitive solution. I thought of starting a new thread to continue this fascinating discussion, but in a way, it is related, so I thank you for posting your questions in the first place. As you can see, sometimes there is no easy answer, but often a good question can lead to new opinions and research

Please let us know how your beer turns out.

 

I have zero idea why you included me in this 'list'; I have never once stated my 'opinion' in this matter.

Kai did not note a difference between a Bock beer brewed differently: one via decoction and the other via a single temperature infusion mash.

You seem to be very worked up about this topic. Hopefully you and Marshall can come to an agreement to conduct a carefully thought out study on this topic and hopefully the study will be performed per a well thought out protocol and via well controlled experiments.

Cheers!

 

Then let me quote your earlier response:

"Peter, you are indeed not alone her. I spoke to Kai Troester and he made mention that he has brewed the same beer (a Bock I think?) once conducting a decoction (double decoction?) and once via a single temperature infusion mash and he personally did not detect a difference in those two particular beers."

The inference (in context to what was discussed just previoulsly) was that there is no difference in the results between a decoction and single temperature diffusion.

If the comment was out of context, then that explains the confusion.

 

As mentioned many times, for me, the presence of melanoidins is exactly what defines a good Pilsner, at least for me. I feel that this topic is grossly neglected, dismissed and misunderstood, and therefore deserves to be more fully discussed, so I'm not going to drop the discussion too easily, as I think others may benefit from it, and also I think that this is far more important than many other topics being discussed much more thoroughly. So, it's not just being "worked up" about it but being responsible in the sense of it letting it get its due worth of attention and dscussion.

I realize that many people rarely even wish to discuss pilsners/lagers let alone melanoidins, but it's time that at least someone speaks up about other styles of beer than just IPA's, and provide their experience and thoughts about the style, and especially about aspects of the flavour that is rarely if ever mentioned.

It's easy to repeat ad infinitum what we have always already heard and read about beers. But here's an opportunity to discuss something new. If trying to extend our knowledge about making better beer is that objectionable, than I don't know what the real purpose of these forums are.

 

If you read my comment I made mention that Kai Troester did not notice a difference between two beers he brewed. I never made mention of my personal opinion here; I just related his thoughts.

Please feel free to reply other BAs on this topic. I really do not want to 'hear' from you.

 

That's been obvious for quite some time. I really don't know why. It's certainly not mutual.

 

Because I'm willing to bet that there's a correlation. Longer kilning and/or higher kilning temps cause more Maillard reactions, a browning process which is the process that makes melanoidins. Longer kilning and/or higher kilning temps also, not coincidentally, is the process that makes malt darker.

 

Or is it just a degree of correlation? I understand that, during the maillard process, as the temperature increases and the moisture decreases, you pass by the bready and then caramelization phase and into more fruity flavours such as plum and raisin, and eventually, with enough heat and less moisture, into chocolate and coffee favours, which is ideal for such beers as a Dopplebock. Thus the flavour profile changes significantly, from bready, then to caramel, then fruity, and then all the way up to chocolate or coffee. Obviously, the more it is 'roasted', the darker will be the colour. So although melanoidins are created throughout, the colour increases for each level of flavour (perhaps less proportionately?) depending on the temperature and moisture content. It becomes quite complicated, and it woud be interestihg to see a correlation graph between colour change and flavour change.

 

Somewhere I read that Melanoidin Malt should be named Maillard Malt to be correct. Midwest and Northern Brewer precluded that happening, as they gave their line of all malts that name.