Mini Decoction!?

[sbaclimber]

Probably stupid questions, but I haven't found definitive answers yet and figured you all might have some answers based on experience for me.
1) Is a "mini" decoction worth trying? I generally have a 25-27ish liter mash (20-21 liter H2O + 5-6kg malt), but only a 20l pot + camp stove to give a single decoction a try... I don't think I will be able to bring 12-13l of mash in the pot to a boil within a reasonable amount of time, so was thinking trying only 6-7l of mash. Would I even notice a difference in the final product with such a small amount? ....or would I maybe have to boil it longer to caramalize the smaller amount more?
2) Will decoction reduce my yeasts attenuation? Some information I have read seems to indicate this may occur, but I can't imagine it will be much of an issue if I at least mash long enough for full conversion before pulling the mash to decoct...

 

[Zambi]

No idea
Following though as your set up sounds about as primitive as mine

 

[Donoroto]

Decoctions are generally about 1/3 of the mash, so a 20 liter mash might use a 7 liter decoction, and since your pot is a bit smaller, I'd say 4-5 liters perhaps.
The decoction has two effects: One is adding a bit of a sweetness (which can be simulated by adding a small amount of melanoidin malt). The second is bringing the mash temperature up to the next step (as in a step mash - like 144 to 152 F).

The decoction definitely denatures the enzymes in that bit of the mash, but once it is returned to the bigger mash, the existing enzymes should be able to finish converting the existing starches into sugars. It might reduce attenuation a bit though, which can be compensated by a cooler mash (145 F makes a more fermentable mash) and a warmer fermentation.

That's my experience. Others will surely also comment.

 

[Minbari]

My $0.02. With how modified grain is now. Decoction is not needed

 

[sbaclimber]

My $0.02. With how modified grain is now. Decoction is not needed

yeah, that is what I am figuring too, but just for shits and giggles, I am planning on a pils with some cara malt and pils with decoction to compare the results. Guess I am just trying to "forward guess" if I need to adjust my malt bill accordingly.

 

[HighVoltageMan!]

just for shits and giggles

Why else? I do a lot of things for "shits and giggles".

I have decocted in the past and the results were, meh. It's a lot of work and is usually messy. But I would encourage you to try a decoction mash and see for yourself, you may find it worth your time.

When I did the decoction in the past, I would pull about 1/3 or so out, leaving the wort in the mash to preserve the enzymes. The boil pot would have mostly grain in it and only enough liquid to create a boil. The big thing to watch out for is scorching the grain. That flavor produced by the grain be scorched is pretty strong and not very pleasant.

Good luck!

 

[Minbari]

yeah, that is what I am figuring too, but just for shits and giggles, I am planning on a pils with some cara malt and pils with decoction to compare the results. Guess I am just trying to "forward guess" if I need to adjust my malt bill accordingly.

Ya, if it just for something to do, sure. Lol.

I would think you don't have to modify it at all

 

[sbaclimber]

Thanks for your replies!
I have an ale lined up for as long as the basement is still warm enough, but with luck and some planning, I should have a non-decoction pils bottled by the end of the year. So I will be back by Dec / Jan with an update on my decoction experiment.

 

[GFHomebrew]

I've done one or two double decoctions never a tripple.

My expectations were similar to HVMs alot of work but the beers I made were pretty good in my opinion.


Good luck with it maybe try and find a slotted spoon or long handled mug/cup of some sort to take your decoctions and remember keep stiring that pot .

 

[Mont Y. Märzen]

My $0.02. With how modified grain is now. Decoction is not needed

Needed for what? Conversion? True. But that wasn't why decoctions were done. They are leftover from an ancient process where it was difficult to raise the mash to the next temp rest. Removing a portion of the solids in a smaller vessel, bringing those slowly to a boil, then returning them, is more effective then adding more hot water. (and also doesn't thin the mash)

There's little worry about denaturing enzymes in the decocted portion because the process steps through the saccharification ranges for that portion of the mash. The enzyme work in that portion is done anyway by the time you bring it to boil.

There are other benefits to decoctions though. I used to think it wasn't necessary or just overkill. Then my buddies and I did a side-by-side brew single infusion vs. double decoction and tasted them in a blind triangle. We picked the decoction out easily and it was far superior in every way.

You don't *have* to do a decoction, but it absolutely will raise your game to the next level. (for those brews that benefit from it - mostly robust German & Belgian styles: Hefe, Dunkeweiße, Eisbock, Märzen, Wit, etc.)

If I really want to make a good version of one of those styles, I will make that effort. It is worth it.

 

[Mont Y. Märzen]

Also, if anyone is even half-way seriously considering decoction mashing, read this: https://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Decoction_Mashing

That is about as homebrew-science as you can get on the subject.

 

[Minbari]

Needed for what? Conversion? True. But that wasn't why decoctions were done. They are leftover from an ancient process where it was difficult to raise the mash to the next temp rest. Removing a portion of the solids in a smaller vessel, bringing those slowly to a boil, then returning them, is more effective then adding more hot water. (and also doesn't thin the mash)

There's little worry about denaturing enzymes in the decocted portion because the process steps through the saccharification ranges for that portion of the mash. The enzyme work in that portion is done anyway by the time you bring it to boil.

There are other benefits to decoctions though. I used to think it wasn't necessary or just overkill. Then my buddies and I did a side-by-side brew single infusion vs. double decoction and tasted them in a blind triangle. We picked the decoction out easily and it was far superior in every way.

You don't *have* to do a decoction, but it absolutely will raise your game to the next level. (for those brews that benefit from it - mostly robust German & Belgian styles: Hefe, Dunkeweiße, Eisbock, Märzen, Wit, etc.)

If I really want to make a good version of one of those styles, I will make that effort. It is worth it.

but why did they do all that? to raise the temperature so the enzemes stayed in the happy temp range for longer because it took longer to convert.

I wont get into a "which is better" argument. but conversion is the ultimate outcome and highly modified grains doesnt take long

 

[Mont Y. Märzen]

I wont get into a "which is better" argument. but conversion is the ultimate outcome and highly modified grains doesnt take long

I guess that's the rub. For some folks—better overall flavor, nuance, and mouthfeel are the ultimate goals—conversion just tags along if you do everything else right. Of course currently modified grains don't need a decoction for conversion and that isn't why I do that mash process for certain styles. I've even intentionally bought un/under-modified grains for a few! I do it for the other reasons. To each their own...