[denny]

I always pull first decoctions with a strainer and take very little liquid.

And the results are?  A very malty, caramel laden beer that goes down smooth?

No difference in flavor than a beer made with single infusion.

[mchrispen]

I hate to toss another variable into the ring, because I cannot taste any differences between decocted and infusion mashed either. I have done a couple and loved the experience, but it add so much complexity to the work and clean up involved that I have since stopped doing it.

So, just noodling around here - -> While melanoidin formation is temperature development, it is also sensitive to pH. If you are pulling a thick decoction, I would assume that the stabilized pH will rise during boil as the starches are burst and the husks, endosperm and other structures are degraded. It makes sense to me that the pH would rise more quickly in a thick decoction than in a thin or all wort decoction as the water is driven off by boiling. And more specifically, the first decoction in most schedules seems to be pulled right at or just before the mash is fully gelatinized. That is pure speculation however.

At some point (I don't know where) the pH may rise, allowing for some melanoidin development... it is common in the culinary world to use acids (vinegars, wines, etc.) to reduce carmellization and melanoidin development when cooking light proteins.

I never checked decoction pH's relative to the mash... so... and I don't see anything specific in Kai's tests other than general statements of keeping the mash pH between 5.2-5.6. There has to be a lot more going on in the decoction than just darkening of the wort.

I can find lots of papers that reference high pH contribution to melanoidin development (especially rate of development) in various protein rich scenarios, but none that are brewing specific. It may not apply here.

I suppose this could be tested by pulling a thick decoction and adding some measured baking soda to raise the alkalinity level slightly (say to 5.8 at room temps) - but would require an offsetting acid requirement when it is returned to the mash. With the super modified malts we are using, not sure it would prove anything anyway.

[T100]

I don't know about you, but when I sit down with a beer I taste it.  I don't care what the numbers say.  If you can't pick out the difference between a decocted and non decocted beer by tasting, what's the point, other than curiosity?

By the numbers is the only way to determine it with any finality what-so-ever.  If the numbers came back and said no it would be settled.  If the numbers came back and said yes but the taste threshold is X ppm and perhaps only 1 in 20 people will notice it would be settled.

You may not care but the numbers are really the only viable way of settling the argument.

I don't view it as a big deal.  Perform the decoction and as needed take samples of the wort, send them in to a lab and have then measure the color and amounts of protein, amino acids and sugars at each interval.  (Just a suggestion, I'm not a scientist and don't know how one would measure maillard reaction products or mellanoid development.)

IMHO that would be much more productive than doing a subjective taste test.  Although the taste test is perhaps a bit more fun.

[T100]

No difference in flavor than a beer made with single infusion.

Yup, agreed, I was just being sarcastic.

[T100]

I hate to toss another variable into the ring, because I cannot taste any differences between decocted and infusion mashed either. I have done a couple and loved the experience, but it add so much complexity to the work and clean up involved that I have since stopped doing it.

So, just noodling around here - -> While melanoidin formation is temperature development, it is also sensitive to pH. If you are pulling a thick decoction, I would assume that the stabilized pH will rise during boil as the starches are burst and the husks, endosperm and other structures are degraded. It makes sense to me that the pH would rise more quickly in a thick decoction than in a thin or all wort decoction as the water is driven off by boiling. And more specifically, the first decoction in most schedules seems to be pulled right at or just before the mash is fully gelatinized. That is pure speculation however.

At some point (I don't know where) the pH may rise, allowing for some melanoidin development... it is common in the culinary world to use acids (vinegars, wines, etc.) to reduce carmellization and melanoidin development when cooking light proteins.

I never checked decoction pH's relative to the mash... so... and I don't see anything specific in Kai's tests other than general statements of keeping the mash pH between 5.2-5.6. There has to be a lot more going on in the decoction than just darkening of the wort.

I can find lots of papers that reference high pH contribution to melanoidin development (especially rate of development) in various protein rich scenarios, but none that are brewing specific. It may not apply here.

I suppose this could be tested by pulling a thick decoction and adding some measured baking soda to raise the alkalinity level slightly (say to 5.8 at room temps) - but would require an offsetting acid requirement when it is returned to the mash. With the super modified malts we are using, not sure it would prove anything anyway.

If you've read this:
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29926/what-temperature-does-the-maillard-reaction-occur

and saw this:
http://blog.ioanacolor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ioana_top-chef-masters_science_maillard-reaction_sketch-2.jpg

then what variable are you throwing into the ring?

Time, temperature, moisture and a high pH (alkaline).

[JT]

I don't know about you, but when I sit down with a beer I taste it.  I don't care what the numbers say.  If you can't pick out the difference between a decocted and non decocted beer by tasting, what's the point, other than curiosity?

By the numbers is the only way to determine it with any finality what-so-ever.  If the numbers came back and said no it would be settled.  If the numbers came back and said yes but the taste threshold is X ppm and perhaps only 1 in 20 people will notice it would be settled.

You may not care but the numbers are really the only viable way of settling the argument.

I don't view it as a big deal.  Perform the decoction and as needed take samples of the wort, send them in to a lab and have then measure the color and amounts of protein, amino acids and sugars at each interval.  (Just a suggestion, I'm not a scientist and don't know how one would measure maillard reaction products or mellanoid development.)

IMHO that would be much more productive than doing a subjective taste test.  Although the taste test is perhaps a bit more fun.

I think "by the numbers" would be a terrible way to settle anything to do with whether or not decoction makes a difference.  You can't get so wrapped up in numbers that you forget what the product is: a beverage.  A blind triangle with expert tasters will tell you more than any lab, assuming you could even find a lab that could test what you wanted. 

[HoosierBrew]

I think "by the numbers" would be a terrible way to settle anything to do with whether or not decoction makes a difference.  You can't get so wrapped up in numbers that you forget what the product is: a beverage.  A blind triangle with expert tasters will tell you more than any lab, assuming you could even find a lab that could test what you wanted. 

^^^   Doesn't matter what numbers say if brewers (and some of the brewing magazines) regularly can't find an improvement in quality that numbers might or might not say could conceivably be there. I'm all for someone doing a decoction to try it or to be in keeping with old traditional methods. But I drink beer, not numbers.

[T100]

I think "by the numbers" would be a terrible way to settle anything to do with whether or not decoction makes a difference.  You can't get so wrapped up in numbers that you forget what the product is: a beverage.  A blind triangle with expert tasters will tell you more than any lab, assuming you could even find a lab that could test what you wanted. 

Absolutely wrong.  The numbers would either say that nothing occurs or that something does in fact occur.  They would also tell you what exactly is happening during the decoction.  They may also give a factor such as 1 in 30 people would be able to tell the difference.  These are things that false labels like "expert" cannot do.

[JT]

I think "by the numbers" would be a terrible way to settle anything to do with whether or not decoction makes a difference.  You can't get so wrapped up in numbers that you forget what the product is: a beverage.  A blind triangle with expert tasters will tell you more than any lab, assuming you could even find a lab that could test what you wanted. 

Absolutely wrong.  The numbers would either say that nothing occurs or that something does in fact occur.  They would also tell you what exactly is happening during the decoction.  They may also give a factor such as 1 in 30 people would be able to tell the difference.  These are things that false labels like "expert" cannot do.

I'm still not sure what test or numbers you think you're going to run but tests regarding human perception,  which are the only tests that really matters in this sccenario, are still conducted using a sampling of humans. 

[T100]

I'm still not sure what test or numbers you think you're going to run but tests regarding human perception,  which are the only tests that really matters in this sccenario, are still conducted using a sampling of humans.

The extent of Maillard reactions can be determined by measuring the fluorescence and fluorescent intermediate compounds in the substance.  I'm not going to run these test.  I have neither the money nor the lab experience to do so.  However, were someone in a position to do so, it would be a significant step forward in answering the question "Does a decoction enhance the flavor of a beer? If so, how?"

If it was determined that Maillard reactions were occurring in significant numbers then perhaps credence would be lent to human perception tests.

[ynotbrusum]

I am brewing a non-decocted, non-kettle carmelized 70/- Scotty today.  I was previously convinced that the reduction boil method made a difference, but I am trying Jamil's recipe that he says was based on Ray Daniels thought that the right tweak with crystal, Munich and honey malts gets the same profile as a kettle caramelization/reduction boiled flavor profile (I will go out on a limb here and say "toffee notes").  I am going to see for myself if the flavor is close enough to justify the time saved.  If so, I will be in the camp that says you can find a shortcut to greatness.

[denny]

I think "by the numbers" would be a terrible way to settle anything to do with whether or not decoction makes a difference.  You can't get so wrapped up in numbers that you forget what the product is: a beverage.  A blind triangle with expert tasters will tell you more than any lab, assuming you could even find a lab that could test what you wanted. 

Absolutely wrong.  The numbers would either say that nothing occurs or that something does in fact occur.  They would also tell you what exactly is happening during the decoction.  They may also give a factor such as 1 in 30 people would be able to tell the difference.  These are things that false labels like "expert" cannot do.

But so what?  And you don't need to be an expert taster.  If decoction is supposed to make a preferable beer, anybody should be able to tell that.

[hopfenundmalz]

I think "by the numbers" would be a terrible way to settle anything to do with whether or not decoction makes a difference.  You can't get so wrapped up in numbers that you forget what the product is: a beverage.  A blind triangle with expert tasters will tell you more than any lab, assuming you could even find a lab that could test what you wanted. 

Absolutely wrong.  The numbers would either say that nothing occurs or that something does in fact occur.  They would also tell you what exactly is happening during the decoction.  They may also give a factor such as 1 in 30 people would be able to tell the difference.  These are things that false labels like "expert" cannot do.

But so what?  And you don't need to be an expert taster.  If decoction is supposed to make a preferable beer, anybody should be able to tell that.

In one of Bamforth's book (I think that is it), he states that humans can detect aromas at levels that are <0.1 of what can be measured by a Gas Chromatograph. The point was that tasting panels are still required for QA/QC.

[denny]

In one of Bamforth's book (I think that is it), he states that humans can detect aromas at levels that are <0.1 of what can be measured by a Gas Chromatograph. The point was that tasting panels are still required for QA/QC.

Absolutely.

[T100]

But so what?  And you don't need to be an expert taster.  If decoction is supposed to make a preferable beer, anybody should be able to tell that.

"so what" and "who cares"... hrmmmm...   childish colloquialism's that attempt to justify ones own beliefs and actions?  "Why'd you hit Johnny?"... "So what! He hit me first!"

The purpose of a scientific experiment would be to establish some numbers which quantify and qualify the maillard reactions (or other stuff) that occur (or don't).  The question being answered isn't "Does a decoction mash make a preferable beer", but rather it's "How does a decoction mash add to the maltiness of a beer".  Whether or not people prefer the beer is an entirely different scenario.

Expert tasters, triangle tests and people in general aren't going to tell you how a decoction mash adds (or doesn't add) to the maltiness of a beer.

I'm not sure why you're arguing.  If you feel that your triangle test gives you the information you seek - then go for it.  It doesn't do that for me.