So I guess I have to ask, if I am not going to do a decoction, did I waste my money getting this particular malt? Could I just as easily used wyermann continental pils malt with the same result?
There are really 2 questions here which would have to be answered by:
A)Brewing with the floor malt and with pneumatic malt without decoction and comparing the beers
B)Brewing with the floor malt with and then again without decoction and comparing the results.
I have done C) which is the same as A except both beers were decocted. There definitely is a difference if you do that.
I understand the decoction procedure, but I'm not too confident I can hit all those temp steps during the decoction process.
I don't think I'd choose a triple decocted brew for my first whack at decoction mashing. The first time you do one you will wish you had two extra hands and two extra eyes.
I have a cooler mash tun and I batch sparge, so every infusion has to be carefully calculated for temp in order to hit my target temp.I can do a protein rest if it will make a difference.The only reason I got that particular malt is because of the reputation it has for producing tasty beer and I wanted to get this one right.
Given the debate as to whether decoction really makes a difference with modern well modified malts the question turns on the degree of modification of this malt. Just because it is floor malted doesn't mean it is more or less malted than barley malted in the more modern way.
My gut says that if you do all the temperature steps you will get most of the benefits of this malt but that's my gut. Plenty of room for experimentation/learning for you here!