floor malted pils and decoction

I'm not sure why you say taboo and unresearched. Melanoidins are a broad group of compounds (Maillard reaction products, specifically) formed from heated sugar/amino acid reactions. This happens when kilning malt (not just "melanoidin" malt), when doing a decoction, and even when just boiling wort. To a large extent, the differences in malt flavors and colors resulting from various malt kilning/stewing/roasting processes/temperatures are due to the differences in the melanoidin compounds made. It could be argued that melanoidins are responsible for most of the differences in malt colors and flavors.

Melanoidin Malt just happens to be kilned in such a way as to make a mix of melanoidin compounds that is similar (at least subjectively, taste-wise) to those produced by decoction mashing.

 

Melanoidins are the end products of the Maillard reactions. Some say that Melanoidins are low/no flavor and high in color, but I have never found a good reference on that. Other Maillard products are high in flavor and aroma.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041029235215/http://www.agsci.ubc.ca/courses/fnh/410/colour/3_82.htm

I often read how many German breweries are no longer decocting, but have never seen any data on that claim.

 

^Good point. I should have said Maillard Products in general (and not just specifically Melanoidins) are to a large extent responsible for malt color and flavor.

 

I was just exaggerating to stress my point. It's just that there doesn't seem to be too much literature on the subject and it's seldom mentioned in terms of important flavours that contribute to a pilsner. There's also a lot of conflicting information. Some say it creates a lot of colour, while others (e.g. Braukaiser) say the exact reverse; some say it contributes little or no flavour, while others say the opposite, etc. There's even disagreement on the type of flavour that it contributes. Some describe it as a "malty" flavour. I think it goes beyond that - it seems more of a caramel type of flavour that hits the back of the mouth and remains there for some time. Personally, I have found that it contributes little colour but lots of flavour. So I find the whole subject of melanoidin quite vague, contradictory and dismissed.

Might be a great topic for Brulosophy to unravel.

 

I have done step mashes, and a decoction with this recipe before, and I don't think I gained anything but lost time. I enjoyed the experience but now I have a toddler and a newborn now, so if I can make the same beer without the long process I will. I will likely play with decoctions again sometime in the future when I have a little more time, but for my experience with this particular malt, it was not necessary.

I have never used melanoidin malt, but may chuck some in next time I do a pils based on your suggestion. Thanks for the tip!

 

I think if you Google, you can probably find some papers. But one of the points I was trying to make is that melanoidins (and other Maillard products) are not an "it." They are a vast assortment of compounds. It's not like "melanoidin" is one thing, and if you want "it," melanoidin malt provides it. And, as @hopfenunmaltz alluded, the major flavor contributions you're getting from the malt called melanoidin malt is probably from other Maillard products (and not necessarily the melanoidins).

 

I've brewed a lot of German style ales and lagers over the years. I've done single infusion, single infusion with added melanoidin malt, and decoction mashes. I agree with @OldBrewer that my single infusion mashes that did not include melanoidin malt lacked that "German" character that I love from commercial examples, and that includes lighter examples like pilsners and hefes and darker examples like doppelbocks. Even beers like doppelbocks, heavy on munich malt, are lacking without decoction or melanoidin malt, imo. For time and simplicity sake, I add melanoidin malt and do single infusion mashes for most batches, as I usually don't have time for a long decoction brewday. The end character is not the same as a decoction, but its acceptable enough that the difference in results is not outweighed by the added time and hassle of a decoction.

 

I think what your both after is old oxidized slightly stale beer, it takes quite a while for all those exported continental lagers to get stateside afterall, think about how something like a barley wine changes with age/oxidation - you get more caramel when it just starts out

 

I don't think so. I've had 3 month old (from bottling) Pilsner Urquell and Weihenstephaner Premium lately and both have that "continental" lager character.

 

That's quite possible. I'll keep searching for some good literature that might provide some good explanation.

 

No, not at all. As mentioned, I have tried making Pilsners both with and without decoction and both with and without melanoidin malt. The melanoidin malt provides similar flavours to the decoction process (although not quite the same). It is definitely "something" in the decoction process or in the melanoidin malt that provides that unique, addictive taste that lingers in the back and upper mouth long after a swallow. I think all the confusion is because so few books on making beer discuss the importance of the components that make up 'melanoidin', especially in some lagers. For whatever reason of omission by various authors, it doesn't seem like it is too well-known amongst many homebrewers, and it is difficult to find good literature on the subject. There is some discussion about Maillard products, but none of the one I have found seem to go far enough and include a breakdown of the various components and their characteristics.

As mentioned, I think that this would be a great subject for Brulosophy to explore further.

 

Have you contacted Marshall Schott to request that this study be conducted? Do you have a testing protocol in mind for this beer experiment?

Cheers!

 

No, not yet - I'm still researching this topic and have already requested the published article: "Melanoidins Produced by the Maillard Reaction: Structure and Biological Activity" from the author (He-Ye Wang). I think this highly academic article will be way over my head, but I'm hoping that I might be able to extract some useful information from it. Once I have a little better understanding of the generalities, I will then be in a better position to ask Marshall Schott for a more specific protocol.

 

Interesting talk by Jamil Zainascheff and John Palmer about melanoidins and their impact on brewing:

"Brew Stong’s premier on The Brewing Network features host’s Jamil Zainasheff and John Palmer covering melanoidins in beer; what are they and why do we want them in our beer. Along with guest host Mike “Tasty” McDole, Brew Strong gives all you need to know about why you have melanoidins in beer, and why you want them."

http://www.thebrewingnetwork.com/post437/

 

Taboo because it is viewed as non-traditional and lazy. Not saying I agree, just saying that this is the reason. For me, the jury is out as to whether I can taste the difference.

 

I realize that everyone has different taste sensors, but I still find it quite surprising that you cannot taste the difference! To me it is more than a subtle difference. But then again, I have not yet been able to detect diacetyl in a beer, so I suppose it's a learning issue based on some experience with those tastes.

I wish you could try my pilsner. I have served it to many who previously were not aware of what these melanoidins taste like, and even those who have tried it and who do not have a lot of experience with different beers have been able to detect the difference. It has a toffee or caramel like effect on the back of the mouth, perhaps not so much as taste, but some type of reaction, just like bitterness has a type of reaction on the taste buds. It is not really sweet or bitter, but different - hard to describe. Melanoidins also occur in many foods, and some compare it as the difference between bread and toast, although I don't quite see the comparison, just that one is more "burnt" and caramelized than the other. Others compare it to the difference between microwaving a steak and grilling it. Grilling or barbequing also produces melanoidins in a steak. If you can taste the difference in steaks prepared in these two ways, then you have a sense of what melanoidins can taste like.

 

I didn't make myself clear. I have done decoction a handful of times and think I have made good beers every time I have employed the technique. I want to say that was partly due to the impact of decoction, but I haven't done any systematic, replicated experiment that would allow me to assert that with confidence. Simply put, I was being careful about drawing conclusions from a small number of non-scientific experiences.

FWIW, if I said that I could not taste the difference between decocted and non-decocted beers, I don't think I would be alone. I believe I have read several accounts where people felt there was no difference.

Although I won't assert that I can taste the impact of decoction, I can taste diacetyl, and it has become my curse.

 

Thanks for your clarification. I have pursued that "special taste" in some of my favourite beers for so many years now (at least a decade) and have finally found it in both decoction brewing as well as by adding a small amount of melanoiding malt, that I'm convinced that 'something' in the melanoidins (Pyrazine?) is what accounts for that taste, and that decoction mashing definitely made a significant difference.

It may be that I'm much more sensitive to the 'melanoidin' taste than others and also less sensitive to the diacetyl taste than others. That's a real possibility, since I think I may be one of very few who don't care much for chocolate, for example. I also have very low tolerance for bitterness, enjoy sweetness to some degree, and often avoid high IBU beers.

I'm half way through the talk about maillards and melanodin by Jamil Zainasheff and John Palmer that I mentioned above, and I highly recommend it so far. It's one of the best, most understandable overviews of mailards and melanodins and their effect on the brewing process that I've come across to date.

 

Peter, you are indeed not alone her. I spoke to Kai Troester and he made mention that he has brewed the same beer (a Bock I think?) once conducting a decoction (double decoction?) and once via a single temperature infusion mash and he personally did not detect a difference in those two particular beers.

It will be interesting to see if John (@OldBrewer) can convince the Marshall Schott to further explore this topic.

I am uncertain whether the words of "systematic" and "scientific" should strictly be applied to the work done by the Brulosophy folks since I do not know how well controlled their efforts are.

Cheers!