Do Modern German Breweries Use Decoction?

Isn't it the other way around?

 

I attributed it to the decoction process making the liquid wort ( right? that what is what the malty liquid is called) very malty and rich, not thick, but deep and lsweet. You can taste the difference in the texture.

* maybe this is a good exapmle - when you make risotto you add heated liquid to the rice so as to release the starches and the finished product is creamy and rich. Kind of the same thing with this process. This releases the starches in the grains several times and not as harshly or a quickly as simply boiling and hence the sugars develop full and deep and rich. Yes?

 

No, one often sees 'melanoidin flavor', but the food science types say that Melanoidins are flavorless.

 

I think so too -- the Maillard reaction creates melanoidin.

http://homebrewers-haven.com/wpress/how-to-make-beer/melanoidins-101-home-beer-brewers/

Not sure where the "food science types" are coming from, but...

 

There are many that say Melanoidins are flavorless. A quick look in the beer library...

Gordon Strong in "brewing Better Beer" page 37.

Randy Mosher in "Radical Brewing" page 43, and "Tasting Beer" page 43.

If you know Randy there in Chicago, ask him next time you see him.

 

Seems like we can find both answers from brewing writers, so I wonder who is most accurate?

 

I don't know your link's author.

I have meet Randy and Gordon. Gordon is very knowledgable and technical. Randy is an instructor at Siebel Institute, and has good technical resources that he uses in his writing.

 

Korzonas? He's been around at least as long as Randy. How about Darryl Richman? His Bock book supports the melanoidin flavor theory too.

 

Heh -- late night research begets even more complex, confusing contradiction:

The above quote courtesy of the BJCP Forum and Hopfenmaltz's close friend, Gordon Strong.

 

I don't have a dog in the fight, but both those books were written quite a while ago. I'm not sure which is right, but brewing science has a lot of things that still aren't understood. What is taken for gospel in one year is debunked the next. See also the thread on decoction

One more thing, this thread kind of kickstarted on the difference between Sam and Spaten, with the nod to Spaten because of decoction. Yet, I believe you stated somewhere upthread (correctly, I believe) that Spaten doesn't decoct anymore. In reality, the most common decoction carried out these days is boiling a percentage of the mash at the end of the final rest, then adding it to the main mash to get to mashout temp.

I guess it all boils down to just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there is more than one way to brew a beer. Which is "better" is in the eyes of the brewer/consumer. I love the fact Prost is doing decoction. Bill was a brewing school classmate of mine, and he is doing the opposite of what we were taught*. I like that.

In the end, we seem to focus on "big" things like malt and mashing regimes, which are easily replicated worldwide. If it was that easy, everyone would be doing it. There are so many things as a brewer you do unconsciously- open valves, start sparging, etc. Those things are impossible to write down in a recipe unless you have someone following you around the brewery all day and recording it. It's the small things. That's what makes beer so fun.

*In a sense, because we were always taught that you had to do what you thought was right.

 

I have Al's book and talked to him at some length at the Chicago NHC. The Melanoidins link was from Michael Korbel, who I am not familiar with. This one-
http://homebrewers-haven.com/wpress/how-to-make-beer/melanoidins-101-home-beer-brewers/

Since Melanoidins are caused by the Malliard reactions, they are all part of the same soup of compounds.

I see that Gordon has a little different take from what is in his book.

 

To be fair, I think Gordon is saying just what you're saying in the first sentence -- and probably confirming the circle we've all been dancing around all along!

 

I think you are right.

 

Any updates to this delightful thread regarding decoction?

I was intrigued by the sources, knowledge and analysis. Any new insight on whether the labors of the method lend itself to the desired flavor and perceived quality?

 

What surprised me when I looked into decoction mashing techniques over the last 150 years was just how many variations there were. Don't think I've heard of the one you describe, but the stuff I look at is mostly 20+ years old. Sounds like an easy way to do a decoction without many risks.

I'd love to know how much decoction is going on at larger German breweries.

 

Ron, below is what Kai Troester has published on this topic:

“It is traditional in many continental European beer styles, especially in Germany and the Czech Republic. But most breweries in these regions have switched to the more economical directly heated step infusion mashing.”

Cheers!

 

Ron,

Have you ever read this treatise by Dr. Charlie Bamforth: http://www.brewersguardian.com/index.php/hop_bine_brewing_blogs/1410.html

My guess on the crux of the issue on why many (most?) modern day German breweries have gotten away from decoction brewing is:

“A much higher energy demand, perhaps as much as 50% more as compared to an infusion mash.”

Cheers!

Jack

 

Yes. Well, that and the malt changed...a lot.

 

I believe this is the key - well crafted malts - plus the addition of very specific specialty malts that do a lot of what decoction did/is supposed to do.

 

I know for a fact that Ayinger still use decoction because I was there this summer and I saw the decoction tun/pot (not sure what to call it). that they still use it was confirmed by the guide. I think they said it was for weissbier, but not sure.