[denny]

The one downside I can see to a shorter boil is that my efficiency will go down since I will collect less wort.  A shorter boil won't give me time to boiloff a larger volume.

[RPIScotty]

The one downside I can see to a shorter boil is that my efficiency will go down since I will collect less wort.  A shorter boil won't give me time to boiloff a larger volume.

Couldn't you just adjust the grain bill accordingly?

[narcout]

What about color and melanoidin development?

[dmtaylor]

The one downside I can see to a shorter boil is that my efficiency will go down since I will collect less wort.  A shorter boil won't give me time to boiloff a larger volume.

*thinks to self - 'and he thinks that's a bad thing?'*

I'd thought of that as well.  But do I need to get back into my higher efficiency = lesser malt flavor theory again? 

Granted, yes, folks will lose a couple points of efficiency from boiling less.  Keep it in mind.  Probably not huge, but slightly.

[denny]

The one downside I can see to a shorter boil is that my efficiency will go down since I will collect less wort.  A shorter boil won't give me time to boiloff a larger volume.

Couldn't you just adjust the grain bill accordingly?

yeah, but it will take a few brews to know how much

[denny]

What about color and melanoidin development?

melanoidin = color.  Melanoidon is not flavor.

[denny]

The one downside I can see to a shorter boil is that my efficiency will go down since I will collect less wort.  A shorter boil won't give me time to boiloff a larger volume.

*thinks to self - 'and he thinks that's a bad thing?'*

I'd thought of that as well.  But do I need to get back into my higher efficiency = lesser malt flavor theory again? 

Granted, yes, folks will lose a couple points of efficiency from boiling less.  Keep it in mind.  Probably not huge, but slightly.

Well, I disagree with your theory, but my main concern is making the beer I want to make. Not a huge problem, just another thing to look at.

[narcout]

What about color and melanoidin development?

melanoidin = color.  Melanoidon is not flavor.

What about Maillard reactions?

Edit:  I should have worded this more clearly.  I was posing a question about the effect on flavor of less Maillard reactions in a short boil, not suggesting Maillard reactions were a subset of melanoidons.

[Stevie]

As I understand it, melanoidin is the color caused by a maillard reaction.

[RPIScotty]

What about color and melanoidin development?

melanoidin = color.  Melanoidon is not flavor.

What about Maillard reactions?

If it was a concern in a style dependent on the flavors given by Maillard reactions then a short boil may not be suitable.

If your comfortable with trying to approximate those flavors with specialty malts, etc. then that would be a solution if a short boil is still desirable.

[denny]

As I understand it, melanoidin is the color caused by a maillard reaction.

Yep.

[neddles]

The one downside I can see to a shorter boil is that my efficiency will go down since I will collect less wort.  A shorter boil won't give me time to boiloff a larger volume.

Couldn't you just adjust the grain bill accordingly?

yeah, but it will take a few brews to know how much

I think if you know your conversion efficiency couldn't you just use Kai's numbers to hit this on the first batch?

Also a shorter boil requiring less mash volume will be more attractive to some who may be thinking about doing no-sparge.

[yso191]

Being the picky sort, I thought I'd chime in ;-)

A list of flavors from melanoidins from Designing Great Beers, by Ray Daniels:
"Chocolate, Rye bread, Musty, Violets, Buttery, Burnt, Toasted, Fruity aromatic, Rose perfume, Rock candy, Caramel, Bready, maple syrup, Burnt protein, Sweet"

However this is from malt, NOT from the boil.  My understanding is that there is very little melanoidin development in even the most vigorous boil - the level is probably just academic as opposed to something discernable.

Now back to the original topic...  I listened to that podcast, and I wanted to ask a question about what differences there were between malts vis. this issue.  I have this idea floating around in the back of my mind that with the modern malts that ale brewers typically use, that this is a huge non-issue.

That being said, it seems a false dilemma.  In other words why NOT boil vigorously? 

[narcout]

Through a lucky Google search, I came across an excerpt from the book Essays in Brewing Science by Lewis and Bamforth.

"Color arises in raw materials primarily as a result of the Maillard reaction (named for the French chemist who first described it), also called, descriptively, nonenzymic or nonoxidative browning.  In food products, this is a heat-driven reaction between sugars and amino acids to yield highly colored and flavored compounds."

"These colored products are called melanoidin pigments . . . ." 

"In parallel with pigment formation, flavor compounds are formed . . . ."

"The kettle boil is also a source of wort and beer color, and again the Maillard reaction is responsible because heat drives the reaction between sugars and amino acids.  The effect is, however, rather small in modern short-time boils."

I'm not sure what the authors consider to be a modern, short-time boil.

Podcast sounds interesting, will listen on way home

[dmtaylor]

"The kettle boil is also a source of wort and beer color, and again the Maillard reaction is responsible because heat drives the reaction between sugars and amino acids.  The effect is, however, rather small in modern short-time boils."

I'm not sure what the authors consider to be a modern, short-time boil.

In the old days (100 years ago or more) it was common to boil for 2 hours or longer.  The current standard of 60 minutes was established in more modern times.  And I think the standard will become even shorter in the next 5-10 years when people realize they don't need to waste so much time and energy by defaulting to 60 or 90 (for pilsner malt beers).