Cost of the boil.

[Sadfield]

Are you reading the same article as me?

Yes. He outlines several valid reasons under the Discussion section as to why his experiment was inconclusive.

 

[Agentgonzo]

I think you are interpreting the article in a different way.

we’re unable to provide any conclusive explanations

(emphasis mine).

He's saying he can't explain the results in a conclusive way, not that the results themselves are inconclusive. This happens in science all the time - just because we cannot explain the results does not make them invalid/inconclusive (in fact it is one of the great things about science, it challenges us to come up with new theories and explanations).

 

[Sadfield]

I think you are interpreting the article in a different way.
(emphasis mine).

He's saying he can't explain the results in a conclusive way, not that the results themselves are inconclusive. This happens in science all the time - just because we cannot explain the results does not make them invalid/inconclusive (in fact it is one of the great things about science, it challenges us to come up with new theories and explanations).

"If anything, it’s results like these that lead me to question the accuracy of beer evaluation."

Seriously? He even questions the validity of those results and his methodology of evaluation.

 

[Sadfield]

Anyhow, as for the cost of the boil, it may be worth considering the value too.

I'm inclined to follow this guys advice of a vigorous boil for 60+ minutes.

 

[Bolsover Brewer]

I think you are interpreting the article in a different way.
(emphasis mine).

He's saying he can't explain the results in a conclusive way, not that the results themselves are inconclusive. This happens in science all the time - just because we cannot explain the results does not make them invalid/inconclusive (in fact it is one of the great things about science, it challenges us to come up with new theories and explanations).

Two problems, Schott doesn't have a scientific background in beer or anything beer related. He is just a home brewer who makes money every time someone hits on his website Brulosophy. So it is in his interests to put up all the pseudo experiments to draw in anyone who is willing to read them.

 

[Agentgonzo]

I look forward to the scientific rebuttal of his experiment explaining the reasons for his false results.

 

[Bolsover Brewer]

I look forward to the scientific rebuttal of his experiment explaining the reasons for his false results.

Read any good scientific papers from Wiley online, or watch the podcast by Charlie Bamforth. Also look out for Tim O'Rourke PDF The Function of The Boil.

 

[AJA]

It was an interesting listen

Anyhow, as for the cost of the boil, it may be worth considering the value too.

I'm inclined to follow this guys advice of a vigorous boil for 60+ minutes.

This was an interesting listen. It's a shame he didn't mention the negative impacts of boiling e.g. reduction in fermentability, except a passing mention of flavour impact.

It would have been nice of the host to mention 'no boil' too, even if he were to rebut it. Since a lot of the chat was in respect of DMS, one way to avoid it is not not heat above 80°C at all! Then SMM is not hydrolysed.

 

[foxy]

It was an interesting listen

It would have been nice of the host to mention 'no boil' too, even if he were to rebut it. Since a lot of the chat was in respect of DMS, one way to avoid it is not not heat above 80°C at all! Then SMM is not hydrolysed.

I think when he has spent his whole life trying to improve beer, and exploring ways to save money for the commercial breweries. He is hardly going to waste his time talking about ways which won't improve the quality of beer.
Stands to reason that the if biggest single expense in beer production is the boil then breweries would be jumping on board a process which cuts out the boil. They can shorten the time with vacuum wort boiling (I believe it is a shorter time at a hotter temperature) while still retaining foam stability, which one wouldn't have with a no boil.
There is also experimentation going on to brew using unmalted grain which would be another major cost saving for breweries.

 

[Cheyne_brewer]

I’m now trying a 15 minute boil. My latest brew (Malt Miller Centennial Delight) was further tweaked by doing a hop mash and doubling up the dry hop - 40g Centennial & 50g Columbus. Wort clarity was up there with my best efforts after using 1/3 Protofloc tablet. OG 1054 FG 1010 so looking good.

 

[Bolsover Brewer]

I’m now trying a 15 minute boil. My latest brew (Malt Miller Centennial Delight) was further tweaked by doing a hop mash and doubling up the dry hop - 40g Centennial & 50g Columbus. Wort clarity was up there with my best efforts after using 1/3 Protofloc tablet. OG 1054 FG 1010 so looking good.

Depends on what you want to achieve from your brewing. If you just want something that will pass as beer why even bother with 15 minutes. Hop utilisation, foam stability, DMS removal plus a host of other things which the boil is intended to do.

 

[Brew_DD2]

Depends on what you want to achieve from your brewing. If you just want something that will pass as beer why even bother with 15 minutes. Hop utilisation, foam stability, DMS removal plus a host of other things which the boil is intended to do.

DMS is pretty much a non-issue with modern malts having negligible levels of SMM. I could guarantee you would never be able to tell the difference between a beer boiled for 15 mins vs 60 mins.

It's not the 1970s any more.

 

[Bolsover Brewer]

DMS is pretty much a non-issue with modern malts having negligible levels of SMM. I could guarantee you would never be able to tell the difference between a beer boiled for 15 mins vs 60 mins.
It's not the 1970s any more.

Well I wasn't alive in the 1970's so I wouldn't know, maybe you can provide some up to date information on the length of the boil.

 

[Brew_DD2]

Well I wasn't alive in the 1970's so I wouldn't know, maybe you can provide some up to date information on the length of the boil.

You might not have been alive, but your thoughts on boil length certainly match the prevailing beliefs of that era. It's certainly less efficient to boil for shorter periods of time, but you'll be hard-pushed to find any other downsides in the real world.

 

[Bolsover Brewer]

You might not have been alive, but your thoughts on boil length certainly match the prevailing beliefs of that era. It's certainly less efficient to boil for shorter periods of time, but you'll be hard-pushed to find any other downsides in the real world.

Is this based on your say so or scientific proof?

 

[Sadfield]

It's not the 1970s any more.

Yet in 2022, the best educated brewers at the breweries with the most to gain financially from shortening the boil, aren't. They are investing money and time in developing brewing systems that shave degrees of boil temperature.

https://www.foodandwine.com/news/no-boil-beer-brewing-ab-inbev

 

[Cheshire Cat]

This debate just goes around in circles. It seems the experts are right if the agreed with you and wrong if they don’t. Two ways forward stick with your process if it works or do the experiment yourself, ie compare you current beer with the same recipe with a shorter boil adding more hops to get same IBU’s.
Im happy with a 60 minute boil as I used to boil for 90 minutes before I joined this forum. However I’ll try a 45 minute boil and compare.

 

[foxy]

Is this based on your say so or scientific proof?

Based on his say so I believe.

 

[Sadfield]

DMS is pretty much a non-issue with modern malts having negligible levels of SMM.

Have you evidence of that?

In the previously posted youtube clip, he's clearly talking about present day brewing and even mentions how breweries control dms levels in the whirlpool, for beers where the customer expects the flavour of DMS. How could they achieve that with negligible levels of SMM? Are you not confusing SMM with DMS produced in the malting process?

And why do Crisp still recommend 'Boil for a minimum 60min 6% evaporation' to reduce DMS if they've developed malting to the point where its a non-issue?

 

[Brew_DD2]

Have you evidence of that?

In the previously posted youtube clip, he's clearly talking about present day brewing and even mentions how breweries control dms levels in the whirlpool, for beers where the customer expects the flavour of DMS. How could they achieve that with negligible levels of SMM? Are you not confusing SMM with DMS produced in the malting process?

And why do Crisp still recommend 'Boil for a minimum 60min 6% evaporation' to reduce DMS if they've developed malting to the point where its a non-issue?

If you're tasting DMS in your beer, then crack on with a longer boil. There will always be people that will try to emulate what commercial breweries do, but it doesn't mean it's right. They have to do everything in their power to minimise off flavours. If there is a method of brewing which simplifies the process with little/negligible impact on the finished beer, then of course people will go down that path. Show me a convoluted method that demonstrably improves the beer quality and I'll do it. .

The likes of Crisp as selling to commercial brewers where everything has to be measured to the nth degree. I'm brewing to taste my beer, not have it tested in a lab.