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.

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

snippage

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

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

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 he
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?

--
Lew Bryson

"GOOD or SHITE?" -- Michael Jackson, "Thriller", 1982
www.lewbryson.com

"Denny Conn" wrote in message
...

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.

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

wrote:

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.

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'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 he
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".

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

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.

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

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

Reply to denny_at_projectoneaudio_dot_com

Lew Bryson wrote:

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?


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

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

Reply to denny_at_projectoneaudio_dot_com

Steve Jackson wrote:
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.

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.
--
Joel Plutchak "People who drink wine with barbecue deserve to be
plutchak@[...] jeered at and socially ostracized." - Mike Stewart

wrote:
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).

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.
--
Joel Plutchak "People who drink wine with barbecue deserve to be
plutchak@[...] jeered at and socially ostracized." - Mike Stewart

Denny Conn wrote:
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.

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'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.

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.
--
Joel Plutchak "People who drink wine with barbecue deserve to be
plutchak@[...] jeered at and socially ostracized." - Mike Stewart

Lew Bryson wrote:
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?

What style and gravity of beer?
--
Joel Plutchak "People who drink wine with barbecue deserve to be
plutchak@[...] jeered at and socially ostracized." - Mike Stewart

"Joel" wrote in message
...
Lew Bryson wrote:
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?

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 ****ed 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.
--
Lew Bryson

"As for talking shit in this NG, Lew, you're the undisputed king, and
that's no SHITE." -- Bob Skilnik, 1/31/02

www.lewbryson.com

"Lew Bryson" wrote in message
. com...

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?

It was a Schwarzbier, ungefiltriert. And ****ing good (or gut, if you wish).

-Steve

Denny Conn wrote in
:

Scott Kaczorowski wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Been there.

Don't
taste your own beers and tell me you can tell the
difference...

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.

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 .

"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

"Steve Jackson" wrote in
news:Jo0Tf.4999$TK2.4976@trnddc07:

"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.

Indeed. One of the two criteria is "prefer." Some people
prefer Bud. Preference is subjective (as is necessary in this
sport). The question: Does decoction make a difference?

Duh.



Scott Kaczorowski
Long Beach, CA