Lewis on decoction

I'm writing an article on decoction brewing for Zymurgy magazine. I recall back in about 1999, Dr. Michael Lewis published a study he'd done saying basically decoction offered nothing that couldn't be done by manipulating the grist. I have been unable to locate this article, or any direct quotes from Dr. Lewis. I'd be grateful if anyone who has knowledge of this or where I could find the article would let me know. Either post here or email me at denny_at_projectoneaudio_dot_com.

------------->Denny

-- Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.

Reply to
Denny Conn
Loading thread data ...

The article appeared in American Brewer magazine, published by Bill Owens. The next issue had a smarmy letter from me in response, which I think had a dismissal from Lewis. You ought to be able to get a copy from Bill.

My problem with Lewis' "study" was that his experiment was bogus. IIRC, he had his students take a portion of the mash and boil it, then return to the main mash. There was nothing in the description and he supplied no response when confronted with the failure to replicate a true decoction mash. He then proceeded to dismiss the notion that decoction mash contributed anything that couldn't be replicated with specialty grains. Anyone who has ever actually done a decoction knows that the process is far more complex than Lewis' and can contribute plenty of anecdotal evidence that it does, in fact, make a difference to the beer.

--Jeff Frane

Reply to
jeff.frane

Thanks for you respeonse, Jeff. I don't think you want to hear the results of my experiement, based on what you wrote there! Just to clarify, would you mind defining what you consider a "true decoction mash"?

------------>Denny

-- Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.

Reply to
Denny Conn

I don't know about Jeff's response, but from what I read and what I experimented with, you need to pull at least 1/3 to 1/2 the mash to get a good decoction, and give it a significant time over heat. When I would do a decoction mash, a single decoction would add roughly an hour to my brew day.

And it did make a difference.

And anyone who's tasted most American-made bocks, even properly lagered ones, compared to German counterparts (with some exceptions, the former don't decoct while the latter do) will taste the difference as well.

-Steve

Reply to
Steve Jackson

He still has an e-mail address you can look up at UC Davis.

I'd be interesting in reading such a "study" too, since I do a lot of decoction mashing these days, and to my taste buds, it seems superior to anything you can do otherwise.

What I'd like to look at in this "study", is how they "proved" it? How many independent judges tasted the results "blind"? Etc.?

If it is true that you can fake decocation by using specialty malts, how do you formulate a recipe to do so? Like, is there a Promash-like computer program out there which can take a recipe that uses decocation, and convert it to a recipe that isn't using decocation?

Denny C> I'm writing an article on decoction brewing for Zymurgy magazine. I

Reply to
jswatson

Thanks for your thoughts, Steve...you're not gonna like the results of the blind tasting, either, I'm afraid!

----------->Denny

-- Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.

Reply to
Denny Conn

Thanks, I've contacted him some months back, but he hasn't responded. I have been in contact with Charles Bamforth, so I'm hoping to get his comments.

One thing the experiment I did taught me is that it's nearly impossible to objectively assess your own beer. I thought _I_ could tell the diffferences in the onmes I brewed, but the tasters thought otherwise.

42 tasters in my experiment...everything from just beer drinkers to BJCP judges to pro brewers.

Not that I know of....that's what experience is for, I guess.

------------->Denny

-- Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.

Reply to
Denny Conn

This is very true. Objectively judging your own beer is extremely hard.

That is one of the reasons I became a BJCP judge, so I could try and learn how to judge beer better, and then therefore my own beer better.

JW

Reply to
jswatson

And that definitely helps you to recognize things in your won beers. But it's still hard to be objective...when we did the blind tastings, I was sure the BJCP judges and pro brewers would be able to tell which of my dunkels was decocted and which wasn't, and they would prefer the decocted version. Neither proved to be the case...

---------->Denny

-- Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.

Reply to
Denny Conn

You're being awfully coy throughout this thread. What was your methodology, both for the decoction, and for the taste test? There could be a lot of factors in each that would lead to incorrect or inconcolusive conclusions. Not saying that that's what happened, but without knowing exactly what you did, it's impossible to say.

-Steve

Reply to
Steve Jackson

After reading more on this thread, a couple of thoughts come to mind. First of all, one of the differences between Lewis' experiment and a true decoction is the amount of time spent raising the temperature of the thick mash to boiling; it's also very unusual to only do one such decoction. My efforts added even more time than Steve's and I have to tell you that those beers (weissbier, dunkelweiss and altbier) were dramatically changed by the process. There is no doubt in my mind that it made a difference.

As far as tasting goes, doing a blind test is one thing, but it's only part of the process. The best tests are triangular, with each person tasting three beers (which are actually only two different beers). Their ability to distinguish which is which is critical. It's also important, before leaping to conclusions about decoctions, that you've offered a significant sampling. One batch of each just doesn't cut it.

You might want to track down Eric Warner, too. His excellent book on weissbier was adamant that only a decoction would do, yet his commercial brewery necessarily used an infusion mash (which he sheepishly admitted when I asked him about it). He's had enough real experience with both to give you a real answer; unlike Lewis, Eric actually likes beer, and he was trained in Germany and in German breweries. He knows far more about it.

--Jeff Frane

Reply to
jeff.frane

Thanks for your thoughts...

I wish I had done a triangle test...I wasn't aware of the technique until after I did the exp[eriment. As to more than one batch...yeah, good idea, but I went through hell just trying to coordinate the data from the batches that were done!

Thanks, I'll give that a shot. In the end, I'm sure that my experiment will raise a lot of questions, both about decoctiuon AND my methodology. In the end, I'm just hoping that homebrewers will; have a couple more data points to help them make their decisions.

---------->Denny

-- Life begins at 60 - 1.060, that is.

Reply to denny_at_projectoneaudio_dot_com

Reply to
Denny Conn

Hi Steve,

Not trying to be coy...I just don't want to get into the whole thing before I can get the article to Zymurgy. As I said in a message to Jeff, I'm sure that there will be issue taken with my methodology, as well as my results. The idea was to get homebrewers to do a decoction as they would in a normal homebrew situation and then repeat the recipe as exactly as possible, but using an infusion schedule(either single or multiple). I had hoped from the initial responses I got to be able to do this with dozens of brewers and beers, but in the end it came down to

4 brewers and 5 different beer styles. I'm not in any way claiming that my results are definitive...justv something for homebrewers to take into consideration.

I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this...keep 'em coming!

----------->Denny

Reply to
Denny Conn

Denny Conn wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ci.eugene.or.us:

Then I'm afraid you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about, Denny. Seems like you've already made up your mind. Have you bothered to actually do the tasting? Have you actually bothered to do an actual decoction?

A decoction brew schedule *drastically* affects the final product. Drastically. No exaggeration for effect intended.

Scott Kaczorowski Long Beach, CA

Reply to
Scott Kaczorowski

Denny Conn wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ci.eugene.or.us:

Sounds like the results were not what you wanted. You thought you made a fabulous but the results showed otherwise. Brewers, particularly small brewers, brew to their own tastes. There are ways of winning contests of any kind, but winning a contest and what you serve at home are often (maybe always) different.

Details, please. What are the comments from each category (pro/judge/joe sixpack)? I'm skeptical.

Aromatic.

Experimentation. HBD. Brew some beer. How does one formulate a recipe for lasagna?

Decoction is a procedure, not a grain bill.

You're an Arrogant Bastard fan, aren't you?

Scott Kaczorowski Long Beach, CA

Reply to
Scott Kaczorowski

Denny Conn wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ci.eugene.or.us:

Bullshit. I want in on the next "experiment." I also want details. If the grain bills are identical (I suspect not) and you performed a real decoction on the one and not the other (I suspect not), the beers will be different. Period. The decoction result will be darker if nothing else. But it won't be that simple. And which result is more preferable is obviously a personal choice and not really relevant to the worth of decoction.

A decocted beer will be different from a non-decocted beer. It's pretty simple, really... The useful 'zymes are in the liquid and there are more than needed, even back in the Good Ol' Days. Decoction, while denaturing the 'zymes, explodes the grain-like objects, this exposing more fermentables to the natured 'zymes when the decoction is returned to the rest mash. Which is why the entire mash is not boiled ('less yer a'tryin' to make one o' them there 'bics). There are therefore more fermentables and these fermentables are of a different character as they have undergone a different reaction (ie, higher temps) than the rest mash.

I suspect a couple of things:

1) You don't really do decoction. 2) Your "experiment" mixed in a bunch of different beers (grain bill, SG, etc.) and assumed that decoction is as detectable as high ferment temps in the finished beer.

Maybe I misunderstand your point. Is your point that decoction does not matter? Or is it that a decoction can be faked? If the latter, I think you have the semblance of a point. But decoction does make a difference. If you're anywhere near me, I'll prove it to you.

Scott Kaczorowsk Long Beach, CA

Reply to
Scott Kaczorowski
Reply to
Scott Kaczorowski

Why the hostility, Steve? Yes, the tasting has been done...over 30 tasters, including BJCP judges and pro brewers. Yes, I've brewed some of the beers, both decocted and otherwise. Yes, I've done MANY decoction mashes.

Actually, it would seem that you're the one who's made up his mind without bothering to do any testing. I would suggest you do the same blind tasting we did. You sound just like I did when I first read Lewis's resulst. I was sure he was wonky, as were many others. If you take the time to actually objectively do the experiment, you MIGHT be surprised. I was....

---------->Denny

-- Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.

Reply to
Denny Conn

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.