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

Hashtag: Decoction Revival.

"Malt character without sweetness." Sounds like most of the best Okto-Marzens I know.

There's hope for malt-flavored-beer yet!

 

I don't know what Munich brewer Hacker-Pschorr does with malt, but through the years their Oktober Fest was always finely and grainy dry. It even had a certain zip and no flabbiness that I thought was unique.......

 

I don't think H-P, Paulaner, or Spaten decoction mash their Amber Marzens anymore. However, their brewers are much more familiar with the results of a good decoction mash that they've probably figured out the right way(s) to dial in that modified malt... without using caramel malt to attempt to cheat.

 

For those of you who are fans of Ayinger beers, Jeff Alworth discussed on his blog:

“Ayinger’s John Forster dismissed it unsentimentally when I visited. “We say decoction is for old breweries. We can do it, but it’s not necessary.” Ayinger makes precise and lauded—but modern—beer now.”

https://www.beervanablog.com/beervana/2020/12/8/rich-warming-and-hopeful

Each brewer/brewery gets to select whatever brewing processes they choose. I have had many Bohemian Pilsners (Czech Pale Lagers) brewed via decoction mashing that I enjoyed drinking during my two week vacation to the Czech Republic in 2019. Having stated that I have had many German and US brewed Pilsners that I have enjoyed drinking that are not brewed via decoction mashing.

There is an old saying: there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I like the way that Ayinger 'skins their cat'. I also like the way Czech brewers like Pilsner Urquell 'skin their cat' too.

Cheers!

 

I'll guess it's first rate malt from the get go.......

 

There's that too!

 

Is decoction mashing ever used in ale brewing? If not, why not?

 

I have the feeling the esters from warm-fermenting yeast would just cover up any of the benefits from decoction mashing.

Decoction + clean-fermenting yeast = big malt flavor.

 

I don’t even consider using caramel malts (at least heavily) to be cheating. It’s so blatant to my palate in something like an amber style Oktoberfest.

Also, would you even notice the benefits in the malt profile in a New England IPA? There’s so much flavor added and up front from the hops, I doubt it would make a difference.


Chris Lohring at Notch was one of the first, if not the first, US craft brewers that I was aware of that began utilizing decoction mashing (among other traditional methods) in his process for many of his lagers.

@ChrisLohring

 

If you're talking about a German-brewed Amber Marzen, you (like so many others) are mistaking melanoidin character for caramel. The big difference is that melanoidin starts lightly sweet and toasty and finishes smooth to dry. Caramel is sweet all the way through.

Think of the difference between Paulaner Marzen and Fullers ESB -- or any number of Brown Ales.

If you're talking Ami Oktos, yeah -- the caramel is probably "blatant." It's why the style has become a category in the Brewer's Association Guidelines -- nevermind it started as a misinterpretation.

 

Some traditional German wheat beers are usually decocted. Perhaps some altbiers and kolsches are too

 

Perhaps a situation of how one defines “craft”?

“Piels Bros in New York City being one. In the early 1900’s they produced all malt beers (brewed via decoction mashing) solely utilizing imported Saaz hops. They produced four brands: Dortmunder, Muenchener, Kapuziner, and Pilsener."



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

Cheers!

 

I'm very intrigued by Toft's assertion that decoction mashing gives him a higher degree of attenuation, and I have seen the same argument made by a representative of Jack's Abby on this forum. JackHorzempa linked a very interesting article in a past thread where a basic mashing schedule for Schönramer is described thusly:

Mashing in at 48C (in the mash kettle)
Rests at 50-55 and 60C
Then raising to 65C (presumably for saccharification)
Then three quarters of the mash are removed (presumably to the mash tun) while the remaining quarter is brought to boiling temperature for their pale beers or for their darker/stronger beers for 10 minutes

It does state that this can shift somewhat, but also that it would be typical numbers. The Schönramer website notes that they are using the einmaischverfahren, or single decoction process.

We can compare these numbers to those found in a letter from Weihenstephan dated March first 1921, sent in response to a letter from a Swedish brewery, which describes four different mashing processes: triple, double, single decoction and the Schmitz process. Dr. Hans Vogel of Weihenstephan writes that of all systems the triple decoction mash process is the best for achieving the best possible utilization of the malt, as well as for producing full bodied "character beers", beers of character. The single decoction process is "only" recommended for highly modified malts or "possibly" light colored beers.

Looking at his description of the single decoction process, or einmaischverfahren, the process can be boiled down thusly:

Mashing in cold or at 35C
The decoction part (thick mash) is heated in the mash kettle to 52.5C for a protein rest.
Saccharification at 70C
The decoction is boiled for 45-60 minutes.
The decoction part is pumped to the mash tun slowly to reach mash out temperature of 75C


Below is a mashing schedule from the brewery which sent in the letter to Weihenstephan. It looks thusly:
The entire mash is transfered to the mash kettle.
The temperature is slowly raised to 52.5C
Protein rest for circa 12 minutes
Heat slowly to 65 (stricken over and penned in as 67.5-68.75C)
Saccharification for 30 minutes
Heat further to 67.5-70C
Pump circa half or somewhat more to the mash tun
The false bottom in mash tun is covered with warm water of 65C
The remaining part in the mash kettle is heated slowly to 76,25C and boiled for 30 minutes
The boiled part is pumped and mashing out takes place at 75-76.25C


I'm thinking that the higher saccharification temperature in the mashing schedule described in the Weihenstephan letter, and possibly also those of the Swedish mashing schedule, could result in a less fermentable wort compared with Schönramer's 65C. Was this intended as a a means of compensating for not using double or triple decoctions I wonder? Clearly the ideal was held to be the triple decoction process for producing full bodied beers, not strongly attenuated beers. So likely the single decoction described here would try to achieve similar results within the limitations of the single decoction process. That is my thinking at least.

Then you have the difference in boil time, at 45-60 minutes in the Weihenstephan example and 30 minutes in the Swedish example (this brewery was brewing only Pilsner beer at this point). Would this impact the wort composition, the sugar profile to any degree, or does it merely influence the color of the wort and the flavor by way of maillard reactions etc., I wonder?

 

Traditionally, due to differences in malting processes, British malts did not require all the rests that German malts did. Easy explanation is that the British wanted to go from A to B, and made a vehicle that could make the trip without stopping, but it was a little bit more convoluted from the get go. The Germans wanted to go from A to B, and got going from the turn of the key, but their vehicle had to stop in every town to check the fluids.

This is very much an oversimplified explanation. Take it with humor.

 

Are you suggesting that the British approach was to focus on modifying the malt from the get go while continental brewers focused on mashing techniques that didn't require modified malt?

 

I think we're saying the same thing.

I was referring to only American Oktoberfests that overuse caramel malts as "cheating", for example, I get this in Sam Adams Octoberfest. It's quite sweet, and not at all bready (at least not to the same degree) as the traditional Oktoberfests from say Paulaner and H-P.

So it's very blatant to my palate when caramel malts are utilized, because the beer is so sweet.

I definitely don't get that in German Oktoberfests, or US one's that are great examples of the style.

Oh, yeah sorry, I meant more recent "craft". Say in the last 15-20 years, the latest "boom" of craft breweries.

At Notch they only single decoct their German Pilsner, so that would align with this excerpt.

 

There has been some detailed/technical discussion about decoction brewing in some prior posts. An aspect that is important to keep in mind is that breweries do not conduct the exact same steps/processes to create wort from their decoction mashing. This is because each brewer/brewery has differing goals.

It first starts in which malts are selected with some brewers preferring to use undermodified malts. They then make a decision on how many decoction steps to make and what specific temperatures are achieved at each step.

One topic which was discussed in posts is maximizing attenuation (i.e., achieving a dry beer with little residual sugars). The brewers at Pilsner Urquell have a differing goal when they produce their wort; they want to have a beer with a high final gravity to achieve plenty of body in Pilsner Urquell. The final gravity of Pilsner Urquell is 1.015 (3.8 °P) which is quite high for a Pilsner.

While visiting the Czech Republic in 2019 I had the opportunity to tour a number of Czech breweries with Pilsner Urquell being one of those breweries. Some additional details from that tour (and other sources):

Malt

Pilsner Urquell purchases barley from the Czech province of Moravia and they produce the malt at the brewery. There was no specific mention during the tour as to what level of modification is achieved during their malting process but my guess it that the resulting malt is not well-modified. I did get a chance to chew in some of the malt during the tour but needless to say there is no analytics achieved there.

Decoction Mashing

“For the case of producing Pilsner Urquell a triple decoction process is employed to conduct a mash of varying temperature steps:

• The mash (malt & water) is first brought to a temperature of 95 °F and then sits for about 20 minutes; this is referred to as an acid rest.
• A portion of the liquid and some malt is extracted from the mash, brought to saccharification temperature for 20 minutes and then boiled
• This boiled portion is returned to the mash vessel bringing the temperature in the vessel to127 °F. This is permitted to sit for about 30 – 45 minutes. This is a protein rest which activates proteinase and peptidase enzymes.
• A second portion of liquid and some malt is extracted and boiled.
• This boiled portion is returned to the mash vessel bringing the temperature in the vessel to 143 °F. This is permitted to sit for about 30 – 45 minutes. This is the saccharification rest which activates the Beta-amylase enzyme and to a lesser degrees the Alpha-amylase enzyme.
• A third portion of liquid and some malt is extracted and boiled.
• This boiled portion is returned to the mash vessel bringing the temperature in the vessel to 163 °F. This is permitted to sit for about 10 – 15 minutes. This final step is referred to as the mash out.

It is easy to see that the above process is time and labor intensive. But perhaps even of greater interest to commercial breweries it is costly from an energy perspective. Pilsner Urquell and other Czech Breweries (some conduct Double Decoctions to save some time and money) still conduct the decoction mash process despite the costs.”

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

During the tour the tour guide emphasized that during the boiling of the decocted grain/water they use a high temperature natural gas heating – 600 degrees C. Caramelization occurs here.

IMO it is easy to see that the decisions that the brewers at the Pilsner Urquell brewery make as regards producing wort is not the same as those made by Eric Toft at Private Landbrauerei Schönram (or any of the other brewers/breweries mentioned in the OP) and not surprisingly Pilsner Urquell will taste markedly different from a beer like Schönramer Pils. Viva la difference.

Cheers!

 

I suppose me personally I'm surprised by the contradiction between the goals and end results of decoction mashing as per Toft and posts by Jacks Abby on the one hand, and the historical record on the other hand. I'm also surprised by the apparent obliviousness to that contradiction by others. When I come across such a contradiction (and silence from others), it makes me curious. Simply for the sake of learning and trying to better understand history.

A person who is writing about the tradition and history of decoction mashing, and who is unaware of the historical association between decoction mashing and lower degrees of attenuation, has not done their homework in my opinion. For anyone using the terms tradition and decoction together, such as the writer in the OP's article, I would have expected a raised eyebrow or two when confronted with the statements by Toft.

I hope this explains the impetus of my post better. I do not question his goals, or his end results, or intend to seem like an arrogant SOB () I only wish to learn more, and by raising a point which noone seems to have been raising, we might all stand to learn something (unless I'm wrong of course, in which case only I will have learned something).