Denny Conn wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ci.eugene.or.us:
Apologies. I know you are a brewer with a deserved reputation.
But my assertion is not based on opinion or belief. It is based on direct experience. A decoction drastically affects the final result. Period. I know that might sound like closemindedness, but it is my direct experience.
An identical grain bill can lead to a unique finished beer in SO many ways. Mash in at 122F and then proceed to 152. Go for
158F right off the bat. ... I've experimented with infusion at 145F for 90 minutes. A decoction does not necessarily give me something that is uniquely discernable. Aromatic, Melanoidin...both can fake a decoct. But then we're talking about different grain bills, aren't we?But talking about a decoct...we're talking about wildly different mash schedules, so: point to you.
Been there.
I do. I say exactly that. Where else am I going to do a side by side like you advocate? I have done the "experiment" more than a few times.
A decoction lends a distinct characteristic given same grain bills. Period. No discussion possible. I have done same- grain-bill batches, specifically wheat beer. Same bill, same volume, same yeast. The decocted beer is drastically different. Period. No discussion possible.
Again, I know you by reputation. But you are simply wrong about this. Your tasters are either not well-schooled or the grain bills are not the same.
"can you tell the difference between decocted and non decocted beers,"
Of course. My dead dog Bonzo can tell the difference.
"and which do you prefer."
Not relevant. I prefer the decocted beer without exception, but that's a preference, an opinion.
My point: A decocted beer is different from a non-decocted beer.
Scott Kaczorowski Long Beach, CA