[The Beerery]

If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

I think the answer is "maybe".     A lot of stuff we do is out of habit and "best practices" but not really based on thorough scientific testing.  (I'm reminded of the long-standing belief that HSA wasn't "a thing".)    Some styles may work with no boil (like an over-hopped quadruple IPA that melts your palate) and for others not so much.   I suspect the pros aren't all over this because of a lack of testing and are thus unwilling to try it at this time.

Come on, man.   You've spent a lot of effort probing people to be curious about low-oxygen (for which I am grateful), so why not be curious about this?   

Because low oxygen is ALL OVER professional literature and coursework. Not boiling isn't

[HoosierBrew]

I've had some raw ales as well, and while some have had some subtley strange flavor component I couldn't nail down. I wasn't sure if it was just a higher protein content due to no hot/cold break, or if it was some dms just above threshold..

How did he get the necessary bitterness? Did he use a hop tea or a >180F non-boil whirlpool?

That was my question - the effects on the beer of the excess proteins/no hot or cold break. Interesting.

[brewinhard]

I have definitely performed some no-boil berliner weisse's before with a mash hop that have turned out fantastic with no ill issues and placing well in comps. I have not done this with a non-soured beer though.

[denny]

If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

Because we don't need no stinking pros telling us what to do?

[denny]

I've had some raw ales as well, and while some have had some subtley strange flavor component I couldn't nail down. I wasn't sure if it was just a higher protein content due to no hot/cold break, or if it was some dms just above threshold..

How did he get the necessary bitterness? Did he use a hop tea or a >180F non-boil whirlpool?

That was my question - the effects on the beer of the excess proteins/no hot or cold break. Interesting.

He uses a Grainfather.  After mash and sparge he raises the temp to 170 and does a large whirlpool addition.

[The Beerery]

If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

Because we don't need no stinking pros telling us what to do?

Right.. Cause why would you ever listen to a professional?  You were from the music industry right? I am sure someone in their garage could do everything you could, only better. Cause whats training and experience, right?   

[denny]

If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

Because we don't need no stinking pros telling us what to do?

Right.. Cause why would you ever listen to a professional?  You were from the music industry right? I am sure someone in their garage could do everything you could, only better. Cause whats training and experience, right?   

Because my environment and experience is different than theirs.  I choose to look at science, try it, and decide whether or not it's applicable to my situation.  You can make your own choice.

[pkrone]

If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

Because we don't need no stinking pros telling us what to do?

Right.. Cause why would you ever listen to a professional?  You were from the music industry right? I am sure someone in their garage could do everything you could, only better. Cause whats training and experience, right?   

I won't argue with the importance of training and experience, but what about curiosity and innovation?   Aren't the latter 2 elements what got our predecessors fermenting stuff to start with?

[Phil_M]

Coming from the hot rodding hobby, there's an old saying, "cheap, fast, and good: pick two." In my experience, that applies to not just speed parts, but brewing too. (ok, maybe replace "fast" with "easy".) Everything has trade offs, the question is do those trade off align with your goals?

The trade offs for a no-boil beer doesn't align with my goals, so I don't plan on trying. YMMV.

[santoch]

...and all thought it was a good example of NEIPA

[bayareabrewer]

If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

Because we don't need no stinking pros telling us what to do?

Right.. Cause why would you ever listen to a professional?  You were from the music industry right? I am sure someone in their garage could do everything you could, only better. Cause whats training and experience, right?   

I've provided you with a ton of sources from professionals stating meta does a poor job at high (4.2 and up) ph, yet you believe otherwise, most likely due to personal experience. You seem to pick and choose what you believe and what you follow, just like all of us.

[stpug]

I'm planning on brewing a Blue Corn Cream Ale this weekend with Blue Corn Grits.  Recipe calls for 84% Base Malt of 4 lbs. 2 Row and 4 lbs. Pilsner.  I've always been told that when brewing with Pilsner Malt, 90 boil is need to get rid of that DMS.  My question is, being that it's only 4lbs, is 90 min boil really needed.  I'm also worried that the wort will become too caramelized and malty due to the 90 min. boil.  I appreciate anyone's help and advice.

I had always heard the same about the 90 minute boil for pilsner malt for the same purpose.  However, my experience with 60 minute boils with pilsner malt has proven otherwise.  I find 60 minutes to be sufficient and without any detriment to the beer, IMO.  Many other folks have had the same experience and come to the same conclusion as well.  I can, in good conscience, recommend a shorter 60 minute boil even when using 100% pilsner malt.  Cheers!

[denny]

Coming from the hot rodding hobby, there's an old saying, "cheap, fast, and good: pick two." In my experience, that applies to not just speed parts, but brewing too. (ok, maybe replace "fast" with "easy".) Everything has trade offs, the question is do those trade off align with your goals?

The trade offs for a no-boil beer doesn't align with my goals, so I don't plan on trying. YMMV.

Until you try it how do you know there's a negative to the tradeoffs?

[EnkAMania]

I'm planning on brewing a Blue Corn Cream Ale this weekend with Blue Corn Grits.  Recipe calls for 84% Base Malt of 4 lbs. 2 Row and 4 lbs. Pilsner.  I've always been told that when brewing with Pilsner Malt, 90 boil is need to get rid of that DMS.  My question is, being that it's only 4lbs, is 90 min boil really needed.  I'm also worried that the wort will become too caramelized and malty due to the 90 min. boil.  I appreciate anyone's help and advice.

I had always heard the same about the 90 minute boil for pilsner malt for the same purpose.  However, my experience with 60 minute boils with pilsner malt has proven otherwise.  I find 60 minutes to be sufficient and without any detriment to the beer, IMO.  Many other folks have had the same experience and come to the same conclusion as well.  I can, in good conscience, recommend a shorter 60 minute boil even when using 100% pilsner malt.  Cheers!

Wish I would have read this before last Sunday.  I did my first 90 minute boil.

[stpug]

I'm planning on brewing a Blue Corn Cream Ale this weekend with Blue Corn Grits.  Recipe calls for 84% Base Malt of 4 lbs. 2 Row and 4 lbs. Pilsner.  I've always been told that when brewing with Pilsner Malt, 90 boil is need to get rid of that DMS.  My question is, being that it's only 4lbs, is 90 min boil really needed.  I'm also worried that the wort will become too caramelized and malty due to the 90 min. boil.  I appreciate anyone's help and advice.

I had always heard the same about the 90 minute boil for pilsner malt for the same purpose.  However, my experience with 60 minute boils with pilsner malt has proven otherwise.  I find 60 minutes to be sufficient and without any detriment to the beer, IMO.  Many other folks have had the same experience and come to the same conclusion as well.  I can, in good conscience, recommend a shorter 60 minute boil even when using 100% pilsner malt.  Cheers!

Wish I would have read this before last Sunday.  I did my first 90 minute boil.

Well, there's certainly no harm in the longer boil, it just adds an extra 30 minutes to the brewday.  Depending on what you're end goal is, you may actually prefer the results from a 90 minute boil vs 60, but as it pertains to DMS (or it's precursors) then I've found 60 to be enough on my system with the malts I use.  At least you have a baseline from which to work now so the next time you brew this beer, if you decide to use a 60 minute boil instead, you have something to compare with, so it's still useful to have that experience.  At least, that's how I do/would look at it. Cheers!