Decoction Mashing

What you have described is a two-step decoction, and each step has a different function. The first step is where the Maillard reaction will occur. If desired, your mash-out water could be heated separately and added, that would be a one-step decoc. Or the liquid drained, boiled and re-added (as you described, two-step). This step is largely just to reach the mash-out temp, not to measurably effect taste and is not normally used by itself. Sometimes you'll see reference to a three-step decoction, where a second portion is pulled/boiled/re-added to give a stepped up mash temp (equivalent to a step infusion mash).

Remember, the decoction process evolved before thermometers were in wide use . . . boiling temps could be observed and that's the key in hitting your mash steps.

Here's an excellent discussion, to include youtube videoes:
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Decoction_Mashing

 

Waaay back in the day decoction mashing was employed since the thermometer was not invented yet and the brewers knew that they could achieve a proper step mash via decoction. The step mash was employed to activate the various enzymes at the varying temperatures and this is especially important when utilizing undermodified malts. And yes the boiling process would develop Maillard reactions and for the case of Pilsner Urquell carmelization would occur due to direct heat boiling at very high temperatures (600 °C).

Even today at 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 and 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 acts as the mash out.
  
  Cheers!

 

My above post was not solely about the aspect of step mashing. Did you read the part where I stated:

"And yes the boiling process would develop Maillard reactions and for the case of Pilsner Urquell carmelization would occur due to direct heat boiling at very high temperatures (600 °C)."

If you are looking to recreate a beer like Pilsner Urquell it is not just the chemistry of Maillard reactions which is taking place.

Cheers!

 

This will probably work, but it's not the traditional method. I would be suspicious of the intensity of Maillard reactions doing this...not saying it won't occur, just saying it may be a problem. The old-style method is to have the entire mash brought up to an acid or protein rest (some debate on which), then pull your 1/3 to boil and then back to the Master Mash. It is imperative that this first decoc (1/3'ish) be allowed to "rest" at a sacch temp (150 - 156) for 20 minutes or so to allow for some conversion. Once it's boiled it will all be denatured. This is the portion (the 1/3'ish) that's giving you the Maillard goodies. I suppose if you let the entire mash rest at sacch temp for 20 minutes, then pulled/boiled you would get desirable results.

In your second approach I'm even more suspicious about getting Maillard reactions. Again this is not a normal decoc profile . . . pretty sure all the grain will be very near converted/denatured at this point. It can be used to hit your temps, but is not normally used this way. The traditional mash-out decoc is to drain the wort only, bring it to a boil, then add back to hit your MO temp.

These profiles are discussed in detail in the link in my first post. But to answer your original question, I don't know.

I used to think the same thing and did a lot of decoction mashing. Background: I regularly brewed Rauchbier using a double D. It was entered in the local comps in Miami and always won a gold medal, year after year. After a while I stopped entering because it was pointless, it always took top place. It sounds like bragging but my point is I had the process down PDG. It compared favorably to Schlenkerla, so not much room for improvement. Then I did a true A - B test: Brewed the standard Rauchy using a DD, then brewed the next day with a single mash infusion. Same yeast, hops, grain . . . fermented/larger'ed side by side. In a true triangle test the results were only slightly noticeable, we all agreed that unless side by side there was no difference. Two of three tasters picked the infusion brew as the better (but again only slightly). So I no longer decoc.

 

I step mash every beer, temps- 122º - 144º - 160º

get it done as easy as an infusion mash.

 

The secret is fresh smoked malt, as smokiness drops off pretty fast. Those dudes in Bamberg just drive across town to get it from Weyermann. In a LHBS in the US it may have been sitting around months (year?) and no retailer will tell you their smoked malt is old and crappy. A local brew shop lets me tag on to his commercial orders so I cut out a distribution step. Also, was originally radicalized that only Weyermann made a proper rauchmalz, but last time I used Bestmalz (Heidelberg) and it was just as good . . . but has to be fresh.

 

Heating a mash tun can produce the Maillard reaction it just depends if your going to mix the mash while blast heating. A fixed thermometer in the tun will be inaccurate. Industrial brewing is entirely different than our systems. Keeping the color light with a pilsner will be the issue.

 

True, I stay away from too much stirring just a couple swirls and cuts. A raised mash screen is the way to go with liquid underneath, Thanks

 

Ah, no FFS.

Schlenkerla and Spezial malt and kiln their own grains. I've been through Spezial. There are plenty of videos out there about Schlenkerla kilning their malt over Beechwood.

Edit - small breweries around Bamberg get Rauchmalz from Weyermann for seasonal smoke beers, but not Schlenkerla or Spezial.

 

This is correct!

@PortLargo

"Forward some more to the present day and only two continue to do so: Schlenkerla, and Brauerei Spezial. Both brewers being proud guardians of an ancient process used to create unique woodsmoke flavours from their own bespoke malts...

In their own kiln, heated directly by a fire fuelled by locally sourced beech logs of course, Schlenkerla produce around 350 tonnes of malt each year in 4 tonne batches, enough to meet their own needs. Their world renowned Märzen, Urbock, and Eiche, are all brewed with a grist of 100% Schlenkerla smoked malt. Only a small percentage of their malt is sourced externally for their Fastenbier and Kräusen beers that contain a blend of smoked and unsmoked malt"

This was recently posted actually, "The Ancient Art of Schlenkerla"... Can be found here:

https://www.jamesclay.co.uk/experti...n0l4TW1C28OBoaUGN5i7wxtcPh56F8KE2bBWb_DclYaV0

 

On a side note... I brew quite a bit of Rauchbier and have tried most of the commercial available malts and have blended and tried to recreate the intensity and character of what I enjoy in Schlenkerla/Spezial/etc... It wasn't until I start smoking my own malt that I got the depth and smoke character I was really after. It's the only way to go for my Rauchbier these days!

 

Do you decoc or infuse?

Thanks for the history link, very informative. My Rauchy stood up well to Schlenkerla, but there was always that last little "umph" that it couldn't get over. Although my smoked malt was fresh I knew it still had several extra months on it. Now I realize I'll never get the true Sch'y level without chopping down some beechwood trees. I do applaud your quest to create the original . . . for me smoking my own malt really wouldn't be worth the one extra point (maybe?). Which base malt did you find produced the best results? Would think this would carry over to non-smoked brews.