Does a double, or triple decoction mash provide a higher extraction efficiency than an infusion mash?
We did a double decoction yesterday, and we anticipated an OG of 1.051, but got 1.058.
Yep, that’s pretty normal.
Good to know! I actually enjoyed the process. Not any more difficult than a triple step infusion mash. Other than the required stirring.
Might be doing more of this in the future.
You can do my share, then! I’ve done them enough to dislike the process and uncertain of the benefits. But I have one in my future. I have a bag of Crisp Hana malt, which is supposedly the original pils malt variety. It’s undermodified and apparently benefits from decoction.
Yesterday’s brew was another 5D Pilsner, in case the first one tastes like plastic.
50% of the malt was Weyermann Floor Malted Bohemian Pilsner. They actually told me a decoction mash is recommended anytime you brew a Pils.
One big thing I noticed during the wort chilling was the cold-break formation. It had great definition, and was very thick. It looked like a cross of the Milky Way, and Northern Lights and my favorite Egg Drop Soup.
I always get a good cold-break, but with a decoction it was much more pronounced than in the past. Not sure what (if anything) this will contribute to the finished beer.
I plan to make Classic American Pilsner this weekend using corn as an adjunct. I’ve made 8 CAP’s in the past 12 years and always did a cereal decoction with the grits or flakes. I don’t feel like doing that at this time and wonder how much of a hit my efficiency may take if I just do an infusion mash. Would it make much difference to use flaked corn, grits from the homebrew shop or grocery store grits (Quick or Old Fashioned)?
My experience is decoction raised my efficiency a point or 2. If you use grocery store grits, go with quick so you don’t have to do a cereal mash.
I just finished this brew and it’s almost as if I didn’t add the adjunct at all. I used 5 pounds (20%) Quaker Quick Grits in a 10 gallon batch mixed in with pilsner and pale malts, mashed at 147 for 45 minutes and then ramped to 156 for another 30. My efficiency dropped about 20% over decoction. It’s disappointing, but I made a nice, hoppy lite beer.
I’ve heard that if you are using modern malts, their efficiency doesn’t require decoction.
On the other hand Pilsner Urquell still does decoctions…
Don’t confuse decoction with step mashing, even though they have things in common. Most modern malts do not require a multistep mash, although there may be benefits with certain malts in certain circumstances as long as you avoid a low temp protein rest. Decoction mashing certainly can be used to do a step mash, but there are other purported benefits. The most important thing to know is how the particular grain you’re using responds to different temps.
Pilsner Urquell malts barley varieties grown in the Czech Republic to specifications that target decoction mashes.
For modern malts there can be some benefits of a decoction mash. The high temperature bursts small starch granuals, making more starch available to the enzymes. The extract efficiency goes up a couple of points. Maillard reactions add flavors. Some beers are known for those flavors, Dunkel for example, other beers do not, Munich Helles.