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

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.

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