Rolling boil or vigorous boil?

[britton]

Well the other day i did, no boil no hops no electric or gas no stirring no nothing, just sanitise the fv dump in the fresh wort chuck the yeast in and close the lid took 20 miniutes, it is now bubbling away nicely, what it will taste like i will let you know

So what did you do?

 

[Sadfield]

 

[Rodcx500z]

One of these Fresh - Wort - Beer Kits

 

[Stan's Brew]

It's your call buddy 30 mins or 60

When Chuck Norris boils, he boils for 90, for maximum hop extraction then double decoctions then chills to between 2-4C before repeating twice more, anything less than 264 IBU is for wimps.

 

[Agentgonzo]

Chuck Norris only takes 30 minutes to do a 90 minute boil.

 

[AJA]

As @hoppyscotty says the difference is latent heat. Basically you are spending energy to achieve a higher boil off.
Your recipe will need to be adjusted for the chosen vigour of your boil, so make notes regarding the boil off volume for next time!

Not to be controversial or a bluff old traditionalist or nuffink, but what happened to the 90 minute boil?

The cost of living crisis, that and having better things to do.

 

[Bzee]

I'm a half hour lid ajar kind of person but there must have been a reason why historically people boilled the hell out of beer. Does modern malt need less boiling or what's going on ... coal doesn't grow on trees...

 

[Erik The Anglophile]

I usually do 90 min boils, get on my level kiddo's

 

[Agentgonzo]

Does modern malt need less boiling or what's going on ... coal doesn't grow on trees...

Precisely this (though I've never been able to find out what (ie,  when) "modern" malt is)

Malt contains a chemical called SMM. When the wort is heated, this is converted DMS, which has the flavour of boiled cabbage. Boiling the wort boils/evaporates off this DMS. Modern malt has less SMM than historically produced malt, so needs less boiling to remove the DMS.

There are probably other reasons too.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

But the modern boil time is 30 minutes surely.

 

[AJA]

But the modern boil time is 30 minutes surely.

And no boil is postmodern?

 

[AJA]

But seriously, Charlie Bamforth is the authority on exactly this question, and is a massive advocate of the vigorous boil. So a long vigorous boil is the technically correct thing to do, but since DMS is seldom a modern problem one can choose to make shortcuts with relative safety.

No boil is a different question though. SMM to DMS conversion starts being a problem from 80°C plus, which is kind of where you need to get to to kill off microbes, so pick your poison.

 

[Sadfield]

Precisely this (though I've never been able to find out what (ie,  when) "modern" malt is)

Malt contains a chemical called SMM. When the wort is heated, this is converted DMS, which has the flavour of boiled cabbage. Boiling the wort boils/evaporates off this DMS. Modern malt has less SMM than historically produced malt, so needs less boiling to remove the DMS.

There are probably other reasons too.

How can you make those assertions, if you can't even define what modern malt is?

It's this cut and paste, unverified nonsense that causes most arguments.

 

[AJA]

This is a good review piece on this subject https://escholarship.org/content/qt...cb377d06d81f26d0ba28725f221e7108.pdf?t=omsuov

 

[Cwrw666]

Interestingly, the "London and country brewer" 1736 discusses this and goes for 60 minutes for pale ales and 90 minutes for strong dark ales. He condemns long boils of several hours.

 

[Agentgonzo]

What's dreaded about it?

are you starting to see why it's dreaded???