Lewis on decoction

Well, Scott, surmise all you want, but the results are what they are. Beers were brewed with identical recipes, down to using the samr bags of grain for each version. True decoctions were performed. Again, all I can tell you is that before the experiment, I would have sworn I could tell the differnece, too.

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

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

Not necessarily....

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

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

He's Scott. Yes, I know him, but please don't associate me with him beyond that. ;-)

Has the article run yet? I don't read Zymurgy anymore. If you own the rights to it, will you consider running it here after it's in print? I'm very curious about both your testing and brewing methods.

-Steve

I'm skeptical of his results, too, but I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand without seeing his processes (both brewing and testing). But to state out of hand that his results can't possibly be correct is a bit like slapping Copernicus around without looking at the data.

-Steve

I see one immediate flaw in the questionnaire: no control, no validation that the taster is able to accurately distinguish between two beers. They're only tasting two, and then asked to in essence make dichotomous answers (yes, there's a no preference option, but the conditions of the test are going to push people into either/or choices, as they know the details of the desired end result - not in terms of which one comes out on "top," but that the test is biased toward coming to one of two conclusions).

A better methodology would have been to triangulate the testing. That way, you can dismiss the results out of hand from testers who are not able to accurately tell which beer has two samples and which has one, as their palates would be flawed for that tasting (unless a significant majority cannot make the correct dinstinctions, which in and of itself would be a strong data point in favor of a conclusion that there is no substantial difference between the decocted and non-decocted beers). From there, using only the questionnaires of those who could accurately identify which beers are different, you can ask the sort of qualitative questions you ask.

Further, it appears that the testers knew the subject was decoction. If you had simply asked them to identify the different beers via triangulation, and then had them describe what made them different or asked them a wide range of questions, including various "red herrings" such as hoppiness, carbonation, etc., so it's not immediately clear what the subject of the test is, you also likely would have gotten more accurate results. Since the questions are geared strictly toward the decoction question, and the testers knew the subject before, you are creating bias in the results before the testing even begins.

Perhaps something could be said that even with that foreknowledge and bias, the fact that the results didn't come out as expected points to the conclusion that decoction didn't make a difference. But the test isn't sufficiently blind, IMO, to draw solid conclusions.

-Steve

Hi Steve,

Sorry about mixing up the names! No, the article hasn't run yet. It was scheduled for the May/June issue but then I heard about someone at Weihenstephan who had done a similar test, and I wanted to try to contact him to get his thoughts. So far, no reply....

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

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

All good stuff in my mind, but there is something else: who are the tasters?

I'll grant you that the average Budcoorsmiller drinker isn't going to be able to tell the difference between a pilsner made with decoction and one made without.

And that's probably 99% of all beer drinkers.

So if you pick those kind of people for your test, you can easily "prove" that decoction makes no difference.

I would say better proof, would be to get some very knowledgeable beer drinkers, say BJCP Master judges or better (people with really good trained palates in the first place). then first let them sample the two beers and tell them which is which (i.e., see if you can get them to the point there they think they can tell the difference). Once you've given them enough time in this "training", where they think they can tell the difference, then run them through the test, and see if they really can or not.

But then again, maybe all this is moot, since for 99% of the beer drinking masses, it doesn't make any difference that their Budcoorsmiller is decocted or not.

I talked with one of the brewers at the Trumer Brewery in Berkeley a few weeks ago, and he told me something fairly interesting.

Trumer makes a pilsner in Salzburg, Austria and the "same" pilsner in Berkeley, CA.

He said that the brewery in Salzburg decocts their beer. While the one in Berkeley doesn't (mostly because, I bet, that the brewery they baught there, Golden Pacific, was never set up to do decoction).

So the brewer claimed that taste tests had been done on the two beers, the Salzburg Trumer that was decocted, and the Berkeley Trumer that wasn't.

He said that other than a slight coloration difference, you can't tell the difference.

But is the "you" here the average beer drinker who only drinks Budcoorsmiller, or the Trumer Marketing people, or knowledgeable beer tasters who might be able to notice?

I've not tried the Salzburg Trumer, but to me the Berkeley Trumer is a bit light and dry on the palate, and does seem like it would be improved with decoction.

Cheers, John

Steve Jacks>

2 of the tasttings were done by other homebrewers far from me, but the tastings for the 3 beers here were done by 7 BJCP judges anda pro brewer from Rogue.

This is what I keep hearing over and over...

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

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

All good points, Steve. I wish I had thought to do the triangle tasting, but the simple fact is I didn't. Yes, the tasters were aware that one beer was decocted, but again, I don't think that makes a huge difference. In the final analysis, people will just have to accept the study for what it is, and are free to either use or ignore the results. I'm not trying to get people to stop decocting, I have no agenda...I just thought that it would make some interesting discussion among homebrewers. It would be great if others with open minds would try the experiement to provide even more data. I had hoped to get a wider sampling of styles, for instance.

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

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

But you may be hearing it from in-experienced palates: inexperienced in decoction flavors.

The subtile differences that decoction gives, my not be noticable to low-ranked BJCP judges, or any pro-brewer.

I'd like to see a test of some rigor: how about a test with 7 Master or Grand Master BJCP judges?

There are 2 interesting tests here:

1) Can you tell the difference between two beers brewed identically, with the exception that one is decocted and the other is not. 2) Can you tell the difference between two beers brewed identically, with the exception that one is decocted and the other has just enough specialty grains added so as "fake" decoction".

The first test might be useful, in that it might be able to "train" a person's palate as to what decoction tastes like verses non-decocted.

One of the problems with Test #1 is that anyone should easily be able to look at the beers and tell which is decocted.

Just to horn in... We were at Weihenstephan back in December, and got a lecture from one of the profs there on this. They did a decoction and a non-decoction batch, otherwise identical, then put the beers to a tasting panel. They could not taste e difference. The prof was shocked, but pointed out that while the panel could not...he could, blinded, repeatedly. He's still a decoction disciple, but he's not sure what's going on. Is it subtle, or is it not recognizable?

I definitely think it's an interesting topic and discussion. Were I still brewing, I'd definitely give it a shot myself. And there could definitely be an impact in various styles. I've yet to knowingly taste a non-decocted bock, for example, that has the rich and complex character that the decocted ones have had.

-Steve

But if decoction is a valid technique, that makes as big a difference as some people claim it does, shouldn't it be obvious to anyone? Shouldn't it make a "tastably" better beer?

I had considered #2, but that presupposes that there ARE differences. I wanted to see if the differences were there...

But that was not the case in the results we got...I think you're presupposing a difference again.

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

Thanks for horning in, Lew! That's exactly the kind of question I'm hoping to get some answers to.

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

And that, in a nutshell, is why I haven't yet seen anything that definitely answers the question. Furthermore, inconclusive "tests" with methodologies that aren't scientifcally or statistically robust, and yet get published such as to make people believe how they're written up, really set my peeve-o-meter off.

Speaking as a BJCP judge, I can tell you that a certification and high ranking doesn't guarantee a good, discerning palate, especially for any single flavor parameter. E.g., I'm relatively insensitive to diacetyl. Asking me to judge between too beers with moderate yet different diacetyl levels wouldn't give very meaningful results.

There's the rub. If the results are subject to any reasonable doubts, I don't think it'll really resolve the issue, any more than a certain previous flawed "study" did.

I assume you talked to a variety of pro brewers who decoct, but one that I know of only decocts their stronger German-style beers, as they don't think it makes enough difference in the lower-gravity lagers. The flip side, of course, is that the *do* go to the extra time and trouble to decoct some of their beers, because they think it makes a difference.

What style and gravity of beer?

Sorry...don't know, he didn't say, and we were evidently all too groggy from lack of sleep and weisswurst/weissbier overload to think to ask. Most of what I remember about that trip is being exhausted, half-drunk, stuffed to the gills, and pissed off...at all times. Except when I was in a beer hall with Stan Hieronymus and Jim Parker, when things were suffused with a rosy glow of camaraderie (and Edelstoff), and when Steve Effin' Jackson showed up in the midst and we hit a Paulaner hall for a damnably brilliant dunkles. Thanks, Steve...it WAS a dunkles, wasn't it? Or was it a completely unexpected Schwarz? I just can't remember shit any more about that trip. Oh, wait...I remember the bus breaking down, and drinking rum (from the bottle) in a parking lot the next morning with Steve Beaumont while we waited for the replacement bus. Yeah. I remember that. And the Schlenkerla Lager...hmmm. A lot more's coming back now. Good.