Pillars of Tradition — How a New Generation of Brewers Returned to Decoction Mashing

Patrik, I agree with you here. My guess is that the author of the linked article lacks brewing experience/knowledge and he did indeed 'concentrate' on more contemporary/modern brewing (e.g., Eric Toft, Ashleigh Carter, Khris Johnson, etc.).

There is also the related aspect of step mashing intertwined with the overall process of decoction mashing. In other words in decoction mashing you are separating a portion of the water/grains for boiling and then reintroducing them to the mash to achieve a given step up in temperature (which is a selected variable) and the brewer decides on how long to sit at this selected temperature. Differing selections as regards the step mashing aspect of decoction mashing will results in differing wort qualities (i.e., some decisions yield highly fermentable wort while other decisions yield less fermentable wort).

Due to the high energy costs most German breweries have gotten away from decocting and instead conduct a step mash via direct heating of the mash tun. A popular method of step mashing for German breweries is the Hochkurz Mash:

"The majority of German breweries have gotten away from decoction mashing due to cost considerations. They instead conduct a step mash where they change temperatures via direct heating. The steps for the Hochkurz Mash are:

• The mash (malt & water) is first brought to a temperature of 144 °F and then sits for about 30 - 45 minutes; this is referred to as the beta amylase rest.
• The mash vessel is heated to 160 °F and then sits for about 30 - 45 minutes; this is referred to as the alpha amylase rest.
• The mash vessel is heated to 170 °F and then sits for 10-15 minutes; this is referred to as the mash out."

https://www.morebeer.com/articles/Pilsen_Beer

Cheers!

 

Time and temperature are obviously key here. And perhaps a key to understanding the differences in the temperature steps chosen by brewers of old compared with today is that the old lager beers (pre-1850s) were brewed to withstand long periods of storage in gradually warming cellars. The beers that were put into the cellars needed to undergo a slow secondary fermentation for many months before they could be brought up from the cellar and consumed. Brewing beers that were fully attenuated already during primary fermentation, or early on during secondary fermentation would have been detrimental to the stability of the beer. So it seems logical that by way of practical knowledge, as opposed to scientific knowledge, Bavarian brewers that were using decoction mashing must have selected for temperatures and times which produced beers suitable for long storage. The decoctions perhaps more of a means to an end, that of achieving temperature increases during mashing. Over time necessity is replaced by custom and tradition, and as time goes on even custom and tradition are themselves replaced (drinkers wanting less satiating beers, less full bodied beers, less sweet beers, starting in the late 1800s with the spread of Pilsner beer, in the 1970s with light beer, just to name a couple of examples of this).

The goals of the brewer and thus the end results have therefore changed. That's my working theory at least. Absent those old necessities, and with different goals in mind, combining a high degree of attenuation and decoction poses no contradiction. And some brewers obviously see other benefits instead resulting from the retention of the decoction as a process.

The Hoch kurz process is interesting. Looking at Sweden's largest brewery's website they have an example of a mashing schedule which is "typical" for them, with saccharification steps listed as firstly at 145.4F and then 161.6F. Which sure sounds like a version of a Hochkurz mashing process. In an interview with their brewmaster in a beer oriented online magazine the brewmaster pointed out that they use different mashing schedules for different beers, and that for one of their biggest sellers (a golden Export lager) the recipe states that it should be pretty sweet (at 23 IBUs, 5.3% abv and 177 calories per 12oz it's bittersweet tasting and quite tasty in my opinion), and that they achieve this not by adding sugar but through the mashing process. If we circle back to the hochkurz-esque mashing schedule listed on their website one can perhaps see the connection between recipe intent, mashing schedule and finished beer, the goal, means and end result. So I get what you're saying, the brewer wanting a dry beer can still use decoctions, and the brewer wanting a fuller (and depending on the hopping) sweeter beer can use infusion mashing, with the choices of each being influenced also by financial and other considerations.

 

That was most certainly the case waaay back in the day before the thermometer was invented. The decoction mashing method was key to hitting 'proper' temperatures for step mashing. Also the boiling of the water/grains extractions was useful for malts that were not well modified.

"History of the Decoction Mash
Decoction mashing refers to removing a part of the mash, boiling it and returning it to the main mash to raise the temperature to the next rest. This mashing procedure originates from a time when malt quality was not consistent and temperatures could not be measured. The long boiling of the grain makes the starches more accessible for the enzymes. This is particularly important for undermodified malts where the cell walls are not as broken down as well as they are in well modified or overmodified malts. The boiling of a defined portion of the mash and returning it to the main mash to raise the temperature also helped the consistency in mashing temperatures before thermometers were available."

http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Decoction_Mashing

I have read in several articles that some brewers choose to conduct decoction mashing since the extracted grain/water which is boiled undergo Maillard reactions and they result is the production of melanoidins (e.g., dark bread crust flavors). There are other ways to achieve melanoidins in the resulting beers. Each brewer gets to choose here.

Exactly! There are many choices in both specific ingredient selection and various brewing processes which will influence the "end result". And for a given "end result" there are a myriad of ways to get there. Each brewer/brewery gets to choose how they prefer to get from point A to point B.

And I discussed that specifically in my article:

"You place the grains (6-row Pale Malt and flaked adjuncts) in the mash vessel and maintain a chosen temperature between 148 – 162 °F for one hour. Choosing the lower end of the temperature range will result in a more fermentable wort and the resulting beer will have a drier quality while selecting the higher end of the temperature range will result in a less fermentable wort and the beer will have a fuller mouthfeel and perhaps an increased perceived sweetness."

In simplistic terms there are many 'knobs' a brewer gets to tweak and they get to choose which 'knobs' they choose to tweak (or not use).

Cheers!

 

I neglected in my prior reply to once again bring up the fact that the Pilsner Urquell brewery chooses to boil their decocted water/malt using very high natural gas flame heat (i.e., 600 degrees C) which adds the additional aspect of carmelization to the resulting beer.

Cheers!

 

Bill and Ashleigh were doing it at prost and now Bierestadt. They even flew over a bad ass German brewhouse to do it in.
https://coloradobeer.org/breweries/prost-brewing-company/

 

I was wondering more about British ales or perhaps Belgian ales. But it sounds like it's not a thing there either

 

Yup, I figured breweries were doing it prior to Notch.

Notch started in 2010, but were contract brewing. It wasn't until they had their own brew house in Salem that they started decoction mashing if I recall correctly.

Live Oak does it too, I think Olde Mecklenberg...a lot of the best lager-centric breweries in the US do it.

 

And a lot of the best don't (along with German breweries).

Cheers!

 

I could see it helping a balanced pale ale. I can never seem to get a malt presence in my American pale ales. Maybe when I get going again I will try to decoct an American pale ale similar to daisy cutter.

 

Jason, which brands of Pale Malt have you tried? It has been my personal experience that North American Pale Malts tend to be relatively neutral in their malt flavor presentation. In contrast when I brew my English Pale Ales (Bitter Ales) I choose to use English Pale Malt since they are more flavorful. For example my recent batch of Bitter Ale was brewed using Thomas Fawcett Maris Otter Pale Malt and that beer has a notable malt flavor (a rich nutty like flavor). Maybe try an English Pale Malt for your next batch of American Pale Ale? Not exactly a 'standard' choice but the beauty of homebrewing is we can do whatever we choose.

Cheers!

 

Maris Otter malt. Thank me later.

 

In 1915 Barclay Perkins decocted a small batch of their X Mild Ale in their pilot brewery. Not sure why.

I think some Alts are decoction mashed, though obviously they aren't Ales, just top-fermented Lagers.

 

Maybe for some styles it may make a difference?

I found these excerpts interesting (see below) it sounds like the differences are minor, so I suppose it may be a matter of "how good" a brewer wants their beers, weighed against he financial costs due to time and effort?

Toft runs trial brews once or twice a year to compare the results of infusion and decoction mashing on the same batch of malt. In his 90-hectoliter (77-barrel) brewhouse, a decoction brew will use an extra 10 liters of fuel oil. “By using 10 liters of oil more per brew I get a final attenuation of 87%. If I do a step infusion I save the 10 liters, but I only achieve 84%,” he says.

So are three degrees of attenuation really worth all that extra effort and expense? “There are plenty of beers on the market at 80% to 83% and they’re fine, but they’re lacking that extra something … that extra level of drinkability, in my opinion,” Toft says.


One of the best sellers at Green Bench is its Postcard Pils. For the first three years of the beer’s life, Johnson brewed it using a single-infusion mash. Then he decided to make a decocted version. “Honestly there was a time [when] the single-infusion batches of Postcard were better than the decoction batches, because we were figuring it out,” he recalls. “But once we got the process down—it took two to three months—I was like, okay, now we’re back to being at least as good as a single infusion. And over the course of the next four to six months, Postcard became exponentially better than it had ever been.”

“If you want to push your Lager to the next level, that’s when decoction comes in,” he says. “Decoction took our beers from fantastic to memorable, you know what I mean?”

 

That's exactly what some UK brewers said about cask-conditioning in the 1970s. And they were talking out of there arses.

I've a great document about brewing Harp Lager in the early 1960s, where they compared a decoction mash and and an infusion mash. They analysed all sorts of things and concluded that an infusion mash was just as good. One thing they didn't mention: the flavour of the beer.

Having said that, I do like Ayinger's beers.

 

Dovetail, too. They decoction mash, open ferment and have horizontal lagering tanks. And, weirdly, they make some of the best tasting Lagers in the US. Their Helles is phenomenal. Process matters.

 

Seems a common oversight of an obvious bottom line in a beer.

The thing is, infusion-mashed beers aren't bad -- they taste good, but decoction-mashed beers just taste better to me. Maybe it's because they were more prominent back when I first started enjoying German beers (over here and in-situ) and the character set my expectations -- dunno. But I miss that character in a good German Helles.

 

Going down a Heineken rabbit hole currently having found some incredibly detailed records of their processes in the 1930s. Double decoction for the pale beers, triple decoction for the dark ones. And most of the hops added late in the boil.

 

It obviously wasn't a consideration. They were just worried about technical shit like efficiency and extract.

 

Lots of that focus right here in this thread, too.

Difference between a chef and a line-cook?

 

Me too Ron. And at the risk of 'beating a dead horse' those beers are not brewed via decoction mashing.

Overall: good beer is good beer!

Cheers!