I'm writing an article on decoction brewing for Zymurgy magazine. I
recall back in about 1999, Dr. Michael Lewis published a study he'd done
saying basically decoction offered nothing that couldn't be done by
manipulating the grist. I have been unable to locate this article, or
any direct quotes from Dr. Lewis. I'd be grateful if anyone who has
knowledge of this or where I could find the article would let me know.
Either post here or email me at denny_at_projectoneaudio_dot_com.

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

Denny Conn wrote:
I'm writing an article on decoction brewing for Zymurgy magazine. I
recall back in about 1999, Dr. Michael Lewis published a study he'd done
saying basically decoction offered nothing that couldn't be done by
manipulating the grist. I have been unable to locate this article, or
any direct quotes from Dr. Lewis. I'd be grateful if anyone who has
knowledge of this or where I could find the article would let me know.
Either post here or email me at denny_at_projectoneaudio_dot_com.


The article appeared in American Brewer magazine, published by Bill
Owens. The next issue had a smarmy letter from me in response, which I
think had a dismissal from Lewis. You ought to be able to get a copy
from Bill.

My problem with Lewis' "study" was that his experiment was bogus. IIRC,
he had his students take a portion of the mash and boil it, then return
to the main mash. There was nothing in the description and he supplied
no response when confronted with the failure to replicate a true
decoction mash. He then proceeded to dismiss the notion that decoction
mash contributed anything that couldn't be replicated with specialty
grains. Anyone who has ever actually done a decoction knows that the
process is far more complex than Lewis' and can contribute plenty of
anecdotal evidence that it does, in fact, make a difference to the
beer.

--Jeff Frane

wrote:

The article appeared in American Brewer magazine, published by Bill
Owens. The next issue had a smarmy letter from me in response, which I
think had a dismissal from Lewis. You ought to be able to get a copy
from Bill.

My problem with Lewis' "study" was that his experiment was bogus. IIRC,
he had his students take a portion of the mash and boil it, then return
to the main mash. There was nothing in the description and he supplied
no response when confronted with the failure to replicate a true
decoction mash. He then proceeded to dismiss the notion that decoction
mash contributed anything that couldn't be replicated with specialty
grains. Anyone who has ever actually done a decoction knows that the
process is far more complex than Lewis' and can contribute plenty of
anecdotal evidence that it does, in fact, make a difference to the
beer.

Thanks for you respeonse, Jeff. I don't think you want to hear the
results of my experiement, based on what you wrote there! Just to
clarify, would you mind defining what you consider a "true decoction
mash"?

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

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

"Denny Conn" wrote in message
...

Thanks for you respeonse, Jeff. I don't think you want to hear the
results of my experiement, based on what you wrote there! Just to
clarify, would you mind defining what you consider a "true decoction
mash"?

I don't know about Jeff's response, but from what I read and what I
experimented with, you need to pull at least 1/3 to 1/2 the mash to get a
good decoction, and give it a significant time over heat. When I would do a
decoction mash, a single decoction would add roughly an hour to my brew day.

And it did make a difference.

And anyone who's tasted most American-made bocks, even properly lagered
ones, compared to German counterparts (with some exceptions, the former
don't decoct while the latter do) will taste the difference as well.

-Steve

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

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.

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

If it is true that you can fake decocation by using specialty malts,
how do you formulate a recipe to do so?
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?



Denny Conn wrote:
I'm writing an article on decoction brewing for Zymurgy magazine. I
recall back in about 1999, Dr. Michael Lewis published a study he'd done
saying basically decoction offered nothing that couldn't be done by
manipulating the grist. I have been unable to locate this article, or
any direct quotes from Dr. Lewis. I'd be grateful if anyone who has
knowledge of this or where I could find the article would let me know.
Either post here or email me at denny_at_projectoneaudio_dot_com.

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

Steve Jackson wrote:

I don't know about Jeff's response, but from what I read and what I
experimented with, you need to pull at least 1/3 to 1/2 the mash to get a
good decoction, and give it a significant time over heat. When I would do a
decoction mash, a single decoction would add roughly an hour to my brew day.

And it did make a difference.

And anyone who's tasted most American-made bocks, even properly lagered
ones, compared to German counterparts (with some exceptions, the former
don't decoct while the latter do) will taste the difference as well.

Thanks for your thoughts, Steve...you're not gonna like the results of
the blind tasting, either, I'm afraid!

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

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

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.

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.

If it is true that you can fake decocation by using specialty malts,
how do you formulate a recipe to do so?
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?

Not that I know of....that's what experience is for, I guess.

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

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

Denny Conn wrote:

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.

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.


JW

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...

----------Denny

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

"Denny Conn" wrote in message
...

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...

You're being awfully coy throughout this thread. What was your methodology,
both for the decoction, and for the taste test? There could be a lot of
factors in each that would lead to incorrect or inconcolusive conclusions.
Not saying that that's what happened, but without knowing exactly what you
did, it's impossible to say.

-Steve

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:10:52 -0800, Denny Conn
wrote:



Thanks for you respeonse, Jeff. I don't think you want to hear the
results of my experiement, based on what you wrote there! Just to
clarify, would you mind defining what you consider a "true decoction
mash"?


After reading more on this thread, a couple of thoughts come to mind.
First of all, one of the differences between Lewis' experiment and a
true decoction is the amount of time spent raising the temperature of
the thick mash to boiling; it's also very unusual to only do one such
decoction. My efforts added even more time than Steve's and I have to
tell you that those beers (weissbier, dunkelweiss and altbier) were
dramatically changed by the process. There is no doubt in my mind that
it made a difference.

As far as tasting goes, doing a blind test is one thing, but it's only
part of the process. The best tests are triangular, with each person
tasting three beers (which are actually only two different beers).
Their ability to distinguish which is which is critical. It's also
important, before leaping to conclusions about decoctions, that you've
offered a significant sampling. One batch of each just doesn't cut it.

You might want to track down Eric Warner, too. His excellent book on
weissbier was adamant that only a decoction would do, yet his
commercial brewery necessarily used an infusion mash (which he
sheepishly admitted when I asked him about it). He's had enough real
experience with both to give you a real answer; unlike Lewis, Eric
actually likes beer, and he was trained in Germany and in German
breweries. He knows far more about it.

--Jeff Frane

wrote:

After reading more on this thread, a couple of thoughts come to mind.
First of all, one of the differences between Lewis' experiment and a
true decoction is the amount of time spent raising the temperature of
the thick mash to boiling; it's also very unusual to only do one such
decoction. My efforts added even more time than Steve's and I have to
tell you that those beers (weissbier, dunkelweiss and altbier) were
dramatically changed by the process. There is no doubt in my mind that
it made a difference.

Thanks for your thoughts...

As far as tasting goes, doing a blind test is one thing, but it's only
part of the process. The best tests are triangular, with each person
tasting three beers (which are actually only two different beers).
Their ability to distinguish which is which is critical. It's also
important, before leaping to conclusions about decoctions, that you've
offered a significant sampling. One batch of each just doesn't cut it.

I wish I had done a triangle test...I wasn't aware of the technique
until after I did the exp[eriment. As to more than one batch...yeah,
good idea, but I went through hell just trying to coordinate the data
from the batches that were done!

You might want to track down Eric Warner, too. His excellent book on
weissbier was adamant that only a decoction would do, yet his
commercial brewery necessarily used an infusion mash (which he
sheepishly admitted when I asked him about it). He's had enough real
experience with both to give you a real answer; unlike Lewis, Eric
actually likes beer, and he was trained in Germany and in German
breweries. He knows far more about it.

Thanks, I'll give that a shot. In the end, I'm sure that my experiment
will raise a lot of questions, both about decoctiuon AND my
methodology. In the end, I'm just hoping that homebrewers will; have a
couple more data points to help them make their decisions.

----------Denny

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

Reply to denny_at_projectoneaudio_dot_com

Steve Jackson wrote:

You're being awfully coy throughout this thread. What was your methodology,
both for the decoction, and for the taste test? There could be a lot of
factors in each that would lead to incorrect or inconcolusive conclusions.
Not saying that that's what happened, but without knowing exactly what you
did, it's impossible to say.


Hi Steve,

Not trying to be coy...I just don't want to get into the whole thing
before I can get the article to Zymurgy. As I said in a message to
Jeff, I'm sure that there will be issue taken with my methodology, as
well as my results. The idea was to get homebrewers to do a decoction
as they would in a normal homebrew situation and then repeat the recipe
as exactly as possible, but using an infusion schedule(either single or
multiple). I had hoped from the initial responses I got to be able to
do this with dozens of brewers and beers, but in the end it came down to
4 brewers and 5 different beer styles. I'm not in any way claiming that
my results are definitive...justv something for homebrewers to take into
consideration.

I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this...keep 'em coming!

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

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

Reply to denny_at_projectoneaudio_dot_com

Steve Jackson wrote:

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.

See, this is where it gets interesting...I did a LOT of decoctions. One
day, I didn't have time to do one and brewed the same N. German pils
reecipe I'd used before with a single infusion...when I tasted it,
damned if it wasn't virtually identical to the one I'd decocted! And
I'd been a die hard decocter, who'd also laughed at the Lewis study!
When I brewed the beers for the experiment, I KNEW I could tell which of
mine were decocted and which were not. But the tasters couldn't
tell...really threw my own preconceptions for a loop. I've found
several comments from pro brewers who basically said "I think I can tell
a difference because I want to tell a difference..after all that work,
who wouldn't?". Very interesting.....

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

Reply to denny_at_projectoneaudio_dot_com

Denny Conn wrote in
:

Steve Jackson wrote:

And anyone who's tasted most American-made bocks, even
properly lagered ones, compared to German counterparts
(with some exceptions, the former don't decoct while the
latter do) will taste the difference as well.

Thanks for your thoughts, Steve...you're not gonna like the
results of the blind tasting, either, I'm afraid!

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?

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


Scott Kaczorowski
Long Beach, CA