Denny Conn wrote in
:

wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

Sounds like the results were not what you wanted. You
thought you made a fabulous whatever 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.

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

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

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

If it is true that you can fake decocation by using
specialty malts,

Aromatic.

how do you formulate a recipe to do so?

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

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?

Decoction is a procedure, not a grain bill.

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

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



Scott Kaczorowski
Long Beach, CA

Denny Conn wrote in
:

wrote:

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.

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...

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

"Steve Jackson" wrote in
news:GyGMf.2899$d61.2878@trnddc05:

"Denny Conn" wrote in message
...

Not trying to be coy...I just don't want to get into the
whole thing before I can get the article to Zymurgy.

Ah, I had missed that you were submitting this to Zymurgy.
That makes sense, then.

I did too. Apologies to Denny.

May I say, though, that decoction has been thoroughly
explored by homebrewers and professionals alike and that Dr.
Lewis' opinion on the subject is widely disregarded as
demonstrating the opposite borders on the trivial.

I'm not in any way claiming that
my results are definitive...justv something for
homebrewers to take into consideration.

It's a good discussion point. I know that certain styles
that I brewed using decoction, like Kölsch, benefitted
greatly from decoction by giving them a fuller character
and malt profile that the infused renditions did not have.
But I never did any testing with them.

Apparently you did.


Scott Kaczorowski
Long Beach, CA

Scott Kaczorowski wrote:

Then I'm afraid you don't know what the **** 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?

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.

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

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.

Scott Kaczorowski wrote:

I did too. Apologies to Denny.

May I say, though, that decoction has been thoroughly
explored by homebrewers and professionals alike and that Dr.
Lewis' opinion on the subject is widely disregarded as
demonstrating the opposite borders on the trivial.

Apologies to you for my previous reply, too..I hadn't gotten to this
message when I posted it. But Lewis is not by any means the only one to
question decoction. The more research I do for the article, the more
people I find who believe as he does.

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

Scott Kaczorowski wrote:

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.

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.

Scott Kaczorowski wrote:

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

Not necessarily....

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

Denny Conn wrote in
:

Scott Kaczorowski wrote:

I did too. Apologies to Denny.

May I say, though, that decoction has been thoroughly
explored by homebrewers and professionals alike and that
Dr. Lewis' opinion on the subject is widely disregarded as
demonstrating the opposite borders on the trivial.

Apologies to you for my previous reply, too..

Yer fine. Your response was appropriate.

I hadn't
gotten to this message when I posted it. But Lewis is not
by any means the only one to question decoction.

Then they're all morons. But...I'm pretty sure that Dr.
Lewis is the only one with any weight. Names of others
please.

You said in a later post:

"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."

Bullshit. Bull****ingshit. If you or anyone else cannot
tell the difference between a decocted brew and a non-
decoction using the same grain bill, then you all need more
training. Unable to distinguish unsubtle differences in a
finished beer? BJCP judges? Send me their names privately -
they deserve to be stripped of their certifications.

Think about boiling a substantial portion of the mash. Think
about it. How can this not impact the final result?

Nice and sparkling clear, as clear as an azure sky of deepest
summer: A decoction DRASTICALLY affects the finished beer.
Period. If you or anyone else disagrees, you have NOT done
the "experimentation."


Can I suggest that perhaps you think that decoction lends a
unique flavor to beer. It does not. But if, as you say that
you have compared identical grain bills with
decoct/infusion...I simply have to suspect your "result."

Again, if you live anywhere near Long Beach, get your ass
over here. We will do your "experiment" and send the results
to the gentry. And you will find yourself wrong.


Scott Kaczorowski
Long Beach, CA

Scott Kaczorowski wrote:

Then they're all morons. But...I'm pretty sure that Dr.
Lewis is the only one with any weight. Names of others
please.

That will appear in the article....

You said in a later post:

"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."

Bullshit. Bull****ingshit. If you or anyone else cannot
tell the difference between a decocted brew and a non-
decoction using the same grain bill, then you all need more
training. Unable to distinguish unsubtle differences in a
finished beer? BJCP judges? Send me their names privately -
they deserve to be stripped of their certifications.

Think about boiling a substantial portion of the mash. Think
about it. How can this not impact the final result?

Well, that was what I also *assumed* until I tested it. With all due
respect, unless you do the test also, you're making assumptions also.

Nice and sparkling clear, as clear as an azure sky of deepest
summer: A decoction DRASTICALLY affects the finished beer.
Period. If you or anyone else disagrees, you have NOT done
the "experimentation."

Can I suggest that perhaps you think that decoction lends a
unique flavor to beer. It does not. But if, as you say that
you have compared identical grain bills with
decoct/infusion...I simply have to suspect your "result."

Again, if you live anywhere near Long Beach, get your ass
over here. We will do your "experiment" and send the results
to the gentry. And you will find yourself wrong.

Ya know, this is one reason that the article may never see the light of
day. Too many people aren't interested in hearing about anything that
contradicts their own beliefs. I'd like to get the info out there, but
I have limited energy to try to convince anyone of its veracity. Scott,
all I can tell you is to arrange your own blind tasting of beers that
are identical other than mash schedule. Don't taste your own beers and
tell me you can tell the difference...brew 2 batches with different mash
schedules and get others to do a blind tasting. You can find the
questionnaire we used at www.hbd.org/cascade/decoction .

------------Denny

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

"Denny Conn" wrote in message
...

Why the hostility, Steve?

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

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.

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

"Scott Kaczorowski" wrote in message
...

Nice and sparkling clear, as clear as an azure sky of deepest
summer: A decoction DRASTICALLY affects the finished beer.
Period. If you or anyone else disagrees, you have NOT done
the "experimentation."

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

"Denny Conn" wrote in message
...

You can find the
questionnaire we used at www.hbd.org/cascade/decoction .

I see one immediate flaw in the questionnai 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

Steve Jackson wrote:

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.

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 Jackson wrote:
"Denny Conn" wrote in message
...

You can find the
questionnaire we used at www.hbd.org/cascade/decoction .

I see one immediate flaw in the questionnai 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

wrote:

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.

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.

snippage

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.

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

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