I see you did a triple decoction. All the beers in my experiment were single. I think that if decoction does make a difference, it’s gonna show up in a triple decoction.
Yeah, it would seem if there is an effect then it would be more likely to show up with more decoctions.
I had to search for that Lew Bryson story and found it here: Lewis on decoction - DrinksForum
“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?”
It’s the last sentence that might be key. I have heard that from others as well that decoction might be too subtle to taste unless you know what you are looking for. And based on my reading it is not so much an increase in melanoidens as it is an increase in tannins and other grain compounds that come out during the boil and make the beer taste more “robust”. I though that I did notice this in my last decoction experiment but when I did a triple triangle test (3 triangle tests done blind) I was not able to discern the beers.
Kai
Interesting findings.
I also believe that my decocted beers are different than the single infusion mashed but haven’t confirmed it with a tasting panel. I also hope to do it someday. I think that the decoctions being boiled will extract some tannins and develop melanoidins which will influence the taste of the end product. This is my theory.
The jury is still out. 8)
Ron, you may know this, but melanoidins are a color, not a flavor.
I haven’t heard that before Denny.
My understanding is that melanoidin malt will improve flavor stability, fullness and rounding of the beer color.
This is from Weyermann’s website.
http://www.weyermann.de/eng/produkte.asp?idkat=16&umenue=yes&idmenue=37&sprache=2
Melanoidins are brown, high molecular weight heterogeneous polymers that are formed when sugars and amino acids combine (through the Maillard reaction) at high temperatures and low water activity. The Maillard reaction is a chemical reaction between an amino acid and a reducing sugar, usually requiring heat. It is vitally important in the preparation or presentation of many types of food, and, like caramelization, is a form of non-enzymatic browning.
Therefore I am percieving the non-enzymatic browning reaction as a flavor or at least a percieved flavor by some tasters.
I would question that they are color only and without a change in flavor.
Non-enzymatic browning clearly creates flavors as anyone who has had a steak knows but strictly speaking melanoidins are flavorless and the flavors are from other compounds created in the same process.
I haven’t learned the little quote thing but I’ed like to respond to Dannys earlier statement.
“Just to be clear, I’m not against decoction, either. I’m against expending effort that doesn’t have a payoff!”
Personaly I think there is a payoff in spending the time to step mash. After all this is where the subject was started at and seams to have been side tracked.
First off you get a better conversion from solids to liquids because the enzymes that do that have more time to work and you can also build up the amino acids ( or what ever they are) that feed the yeast so you don’t have to add things to help the yeast along as it’s already there. This boils down to better extraction with less grain used and additives required thus money saved, just a few bucks but now a days a few bucks is a few bucks.
Secondly you can control things like alcohol content and body of the brew by adjusting your heats and times you spend at the various temps. If I want a higher alcohol content in my stout I can stay at a lower temp a little longer before I raise it up. If I want lower maybe I don’t go to the lower temp at all I make the choice. With single step you get what you get. Mash in at 158 and you get higher body and lower alcohol and that’s it.
Lastly I have to use less water to batch sparge and take less of a chance of washing out things that cause off flavors in the beer because most of my water is already in the turn. I don’t have to worry about trashing my ph during the sparge because I’m not doing it that long.
Expending energy is a matter of opinion and personal preference. What one man calls expending effort with no payoff another one calls time well spent, money saved and problems avoided.
Sorry for the interruption feel free to go on with your topic. 
Thank you, John.
sharg54, as much as I like step mashing since it is such an inherently German way to brew I have to admit that most of what you listed you also get with a single infusion mash given the grain is modified enough.
Kai
As I said in another post, I did a step mash on my latest brew. I got the same 85% efficiency I always get, so no gain there. And if I can get 85% doing a single infusion, I don’t see a reason to do a step mash to improve efficiency.
But I can do that perfectly well by manipulating temp and time in a single infusion mash.
But neither of those things has ever caused me problems in a single infusion. Why should I try to fix something that’s fine already?
And if you want to do it for that reason, fine by me. But I’m not convinced by your argument that there are benefits to be had.
Question away, but science says that melanoidins are a color. However, as pointed out, the same process that creates melanoidins also creates Maillard reaction flavor products.
So it’s a moot point.
Only if you don’t want to be precise
I’m not saying don’t do it your way, but you need better reasons. The main reason I use nutrient is for the trace minerals, step mashing isn’t going to increase those. Alcohol content and body are closely dependent on each other for a given grist, and what you’re describing can be achieved by changing your single infusion temperature and/or time. Also, you’re using the same amount of water to batch sparge, unless you’re saying that step mashing reduces the amount of water the grain absorbs. And with more water in your first batch sparge, you’re actually more likely to extract off flavors, not less likely. The efficiency might be your best selling point, but are you sure yours is really that much better than a single infuser? I’m not convinced.
Not to those of us who care.
It’s precisely a moot point. 
In our processes, can you have one without the other?
I hope this doesn’t seem like we’re piling on, but for some things you need to back it up.
If you say “I like step mashing, and I like my beer” I’m not going to try to convince you to change anything.
But with the number of science-minded people here, when you say one way has an advantage over another you’re going to need to show it.
I disagree. Everyone has different tastes. Just because some say it doesn’t work for them, doesn’t mean it’s not a valid procedure. I don’t step mash, because I’m lazy, but it’s been done for years and others believe in it. You can certainly squeeze out a little better efficiency, so that, in and of itself, is an advantage.