Pick Six -- Dedication & Decoction

Then you may not be understanding what you are quoting. Decoction is where you take a percentage of the grist, set it into another vessel, boil it to break down long chain sugars and add it back into the main mash so that the enzymes alpha amylase and beta amylase can more efficiently break down the longer chain sugars into short chain sugars that yeast can utilize for fermentation. A cereal mash is where you take a percentage of non modified grains and boil them to break down the long chain carbs into shorter chain sugars that are then added back into the main mash so that alpha and beta amylase can break these long chain sugars down to short chain sugars that can be fermented by the yeast. What's the difference? One uses under modified barley. The other description uses non modified grains other than barley. That's it. Since the term decoction describes a process and not what is processed it stands to reason that a cereal mash is a form of decoction. I also find it humorous that you don't trust your source in one post but try to use it to discredit mine.

 

That was the point of decoction mashes as well.

https://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.p...iginates from,more accessible for the enzymes.

"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."

 

A few things, decoction happens in a separate vessel as well. A portion of the mash is removed and boiled in a separate container. Decoction is not conducted in the main mash tun with the entire grist. So I'm unsure of why that's a sticking point for you.
My point is that Cereal mashing is very close to decoction, and even goes back to ensuring fermentability in both cases. To read your responses it seems you wish to muddy the waters because of your own bias against Corona. I am merely trying to point out that maybe you've allowed yourself to over react to the inclusion of the beer. I am also trying to help rationalize why the BREWER who included it in their list would do so. Perhaps @honkey @erway @dauss @jbogner @JacksAbbyBrewing would weigh in and give a more comprehensive opinion on how close these processes are.
Lastly, I'm not sticking up for the article, but rather offering insight as to how similar the processes really are and offering a reason as to why Corona was included. Steve, I like you and am not arguing simply for the fun of it. But you did post the topic, and this is a forum, at least it didn't turn into another hazy beer bitch session.

 

I think he’s trying to say that in both cases a portion of the overall grist is cooked extra to affect the kinds of sugars available. The goals may be different (gelatinizing vs. Maillard reactions), but the process is similar.

 

The intention for both has always been about helping under modified grains to become more fermentable. Maillard reactions are a side effect.

 

My point was that a minor mis-summarization in the subtitle of a fluff piece about a fantasized mixed six pack isn’t that big of a deal, especially, when any confusion it causes is cleared up by the third sentence of the article. Others may have different opinions.

 

"Others", like Allan herself?

 

That's not the same source, it's an excerpt from The Oxford Companion To Beer, and that particular entry was written by Paul KA Buttrick.

Buttrick also wrote the entry for "mashing" in the same book, which contains the following description:

https://beerandbrewing.com/dictionary/BkD3Ilopul/

"Variations on decoction processes are also often used when unmalted cereals, usually corn grits or rice, are used as adjuncts in the in the mash."

Given the overlapping process and purpose of cereal mashing and decoction, and the simple fact that Brienne Allan is one of the foremost experts on decoction on this planet, maybe don't turn your more narrow understanding of decoction into commentary on the beer credentials or editorial practices of Craft Beer & Brewing Magazine.

 

The decoction emphasis is a bit heavy handed (she actually stated: "I can’t drink non-decocted beer") and people's reactions are following suit. But with all due respect to Brienne Allan, this has eclipsed a bunch of other things in the article worth talking about.

Regarding Schlenkerla Helles she states:

This is potentially very misleading. According to the brewer, this beer is not produced with smoked malt. The smokiness of the beer is primarily due to their reuse of yeast previously used in their Rauchbier production, and it gets a helping hand from the impact of their malt mill on the non-smoked malt. This is straight from the mouth of the brewer. Perhaps it is BS, but then I wouldn't characterize this as myth. If Lohring is correct then the brewer of Allan's current favorite beer is lying. They intentionally do not market their Helles as a Rauchbier, and this can even be a liability in the marketplace with consumer expectations of a Helles. When she states Kräusen, it sounds like there is some confusion regarding the various Schlenkerla beers. Their "Kräusen" beer is a different beer than their straight Helles. That beer is their Helles that's blended with some of their Märzen Rauchbier via "Kräusening" - in which case the smokiness is mainly due to smoked malt. @herrburgess


Regarding Únětické, she states:

I found this to be an odd statement. I have never seen diacetyl being (indirectly?) attributed to pasteurization (as opposed to fermentation). As far as I know, oxidation after packaging can increase the amount of diacetyl if the right conditions exist in the beer. @JackHorzempa , can you add anything here or help me understand her statement?


I give her credit for including Corona (Extra?) and praising the marketing. (A move that will clearly cause a reaction in people.) She states:

This is a very interesting comparison, but does it really hold up? First off, "Premier" is their lightest offering although the same ABV as their "Light" (and just feels like it exists to be an updated version of their "Light" with fewer carbs). "Extra" is their standard offering and "Familiar" is the biggest of the bunch. There's nothing intuitive about this marketing for consumers and it doesn't work as a scale. Secondly, are the differences between these Corona brands a result of differences in gravity similar to Czech brewing culture? Someone familiar with the production methods of the Corona beers would need to answer that. Perhaps Allan has trustworthy info here.


Regarding Notch Lojko, she states:

The comparison to so-called Italian-style pilsner is obvious and funny. This "Polish-style" beer devalues the entire "Italian-style" notion as a concept, and she goes on to devalue "Italian-style" pilsners as a drinking experience. Then she states the importance of using techniques and raw materials from a specific region when claiming a beer is adhering to a regional style. This also pulls the rug out from under Italian pilsner. I wonder what her fiance/husband(?) thinks of that considering his importance in the idea/promotion of Italian-style.

According to Notch's site, Lojko is made with Czech malt and Polish hops. On the surface, that doesn't seem to mesh with her statement of their warehouse having "all these Polish ingredients that go into it." I wish I knew more about the beers that inspired Lojko. How prevalent was dry hopping in Polish lager brewing? What beers were being served at the Polish club she is referring to? Likely Zubr, Tatra, Zywiec, Okocim, Lomza, Warka, Tyskie, Lech, or something similar. To take her comments literally, she’s saying that she can taste the triple decoction in Lojko and that Lojko tastes “exactly the same” as the beer in the Polish club. I couldn’t tell you the production processes of those imports, but I wouldn’t assume that her two statements are compatible with each other.

I realize I'm guilty of taking all of her statements too literally, and that I'm looking foolish in the process.

 

Nope, I don't think you are

 

I barely have a basic understanding of what Decoction brewing is, so I'm willing to grant some leeway, but; I'd like to see some kind of verification for this statement. I'm not doubting her skills and abilities, but. "one of the foremost experts" on this spinning rock? Top 3? 5? 25? 100? 1,000? Please focus this for me.

 

Do you think, given your barely basic understanding, that cereal mashing is a variation of decoction mashing?

 

just getting around to reading the interview/article. im not quite sure what's happening in there, but i suspect it may have been the editing that makes some of her answers confusing. it sounds to me in the section on schlenkerla helles that she's talking at times about the märzen (and/or the kräusen) in her discussion of the brewery and its beers and techniques; and then that messaging got mixed (up) after having simply listed the helles as one of her favorite beers. as for the cereal cooker vs decoction "debate": maybe something similar is happening there, too, around the editing? i don't see a clear equivalence drawn, but in the discussion and listing of corona as a favorite, the message gets a bit muddled. maybe it's bc im a former editor...or maybe it's bc corona is one of my top five worst beers (see how muddled language works?), but to even imply that what puts corona in the same class as the other beers listed here is the cereal cooking is, well, a bit of a stretch. weird piece. id scold the editor for this one....

(p.s. I know my punctuation and grammar aren't perfect here. i don't edit message board posts the way I would print stuff)

 

not to mention they spelled Bamberg as Bamburg.

 

The generation of (primarily) German-born American brewers which developed adjunct lager beer brewing considered boiling corn or rice in a separate vessel - Double Mashing - part of the Infusion Method, as explained in this snip from One Hundred Years of Brewing (© 1900):

 

good stuff. similar but distinct, the two practices, according to the sources at the time when they were being developed and employed.

 

Chris,

I have never heard of pasteurization being a cause.

Also, I am not familiar with diacetyl increasing due to oxidation within the packaged beer.

There are two pathways to diacetyl occurring in beer that I am aware of:

“Yeast pathway to produce diacetyl

Diacetyl is produced during the primary fermentation of beer by the brewers yeast. During fermentation the yeast will produce amino acids, proteins and a number of other compounds. One of the amino acids produced by the yeast is valine via an intermediate compound, acetolactate. Not all of the acetolactate will be processed into valine and this excess acetolactate will exit the yeast cell. This acetolactate outside the yeast cell will be chemically converted to diacetyl in the beer. This chemical process is an oxidative reaction and higher fermentation temperatures will encourage this reaction. Beyond the aspect of fermentation temperature there are other factors which increase the production of diacetyl in the beer:

• Poor wort nutrition (i.e., lack of valine) will encourage the yeast cell to increase valine production
• Low levels of oxygen in the wort
• Yeast strain

To further expound on the last factor listed above, yeast strain selection can have a notable impact here. For example, the Ringwood yeast strain (e.g., Wyeast 1187) is renowned for producing a lot of diacetyl during primary fermentation.”

The 'solution' to the above is to permit sufficient time in the brewery during the fermentation process to allow the yeast to clean up the diacetyl produced (e.g., conduct a diacetyl rest).

And:

“Bacterial contamination

Diacetyl can be produced by lactic acid producing bacteria, Pediococcus and Lactobacillus. But if the beer is suffering from a bacterial contamination it is likely there is more off about the beer than just a buttery flavor.

There is a straightforward solution to this potential issue: practice proper sanitation in the brewing of the beer.

For the case of serving beer via draft (bars, homebrewers that keg) the cause of perceptible diacetyl in beer can be caused by dirty lines (bacterial contamination in the beer lines).

On the off chance that the amount of contamination is low and there is still live yeast present in the beer there is a chance that the yeast can ‘clean up’ the diacetyl over time but it is best just to practice proper sanitation in brewing; this will nip the problem in the bud.”

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

As regards the Pale Lagers of Únětické Pivovar, I had a ‘series’ of their beers while visiting the brewery (10° -> 12° -> 14° and all of these beers were unpasteurized). I am quite sensitive to perceiving diacetyl in beer and both the 10° and 12° beer had no perceptible diacetyl but in the 14° beer there was indeed perceptible diacetyl (buttery flavor for my palate). So, for the case of 14° there was perceptible diacetyl even though that beer was unpasteurized. Why diacetyl was an issue for the 14° beer vs. the others, you got me here.



Below is some further discussion on Czech beers and diacetyl:

“Bohemian Pilsner (Czech Pale Lager)

For the Czech Pale Lagers (Czech Pale Lager, Czech Premium Pale Lager) there is the below verbiage with emphasis in bold by me:

Aroma: Light (but never intrusive) diacetyl and light, fruity hop-derived esters are acceptable, but need not be present.

Flavor: “Diacetyl or fruity esters are acceptable at low levels, but need not be present and should never be overbearing.”

So, similar to what was detailed above for Bitter Ales the subjective verbiage “low levels” is utilized.

During my visit to Prague/Czech Republic in 2019 I often experienced levels of diacetyl which in my opinion were much higher than “low levels” and for some reason only when drinking draft mugs of Pilsner Urquell served at Tankovna (tank) Pubs. I had a discussion with the tour guide of the Pilsner Urquell brewery which I detailed in my article, “Pilsen Beer – The Family of Pilsners”:

“…the only beer I sometimes had diacetyl issues with was Pilsner Urquell and principally when at Tankovna Pubs which served Pilsner Urquell directly from tanks within the pub. When I visited the Pilsner Urquell brewery to take a tour I asked the tour guide about this topic. She recognized this situation but since she was not a brewer she had no answer to why there was variability here.”

As you can read above I did not obtain an answer from the brewery tour guide. Do you think the elevated levels of diacetyl in Pilsner Urquell beers at Tankovna Pubs is an oxidation thing?

Cheers!

 

2,3-pentanedione can develop later if there's not enough valine produced before fermentation. pentanedione, like diacetyl, is a Vicinal Diketone (VDK). same may be true for diacetyl, but I haven't had that issue (like I have with pentanedione) so I dunno 100%

 

I have discussed this whole 'Italian Pilsner' thing in past threads. An 'Italian Pilsner' is just a German Pilsner (which includes dry hopping).

On a related note for this year's batch of 1896 Michelob, where I typically feature Czech Saaz hops for flavor/aroma, I decided to use Saaz hops which were grown in Poland (Lubelski hops). This year's batch is noticeably different in that with Czech Saaz hops there is more of a spicy/herbal flavor but for this year's batch the flavor is more of a floral aspect.

For completeness, I personally would not 'brand' this beer as a Polish Pilsner.

Cheers!