Author Topic: Is a 90 Min boil needed?  (Read 7289 times)

The Beerery

  • Guest
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2017, 05:35:54 PM »
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 :)

Offline HoosierBrew

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 13030
  • Indianapolis,IN
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2017, 05:36:54 PM »
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.
Jon H.

Offline brewinhard

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3272
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2017, 07:32:56 PM »
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.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 20811
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2017, 07:37:28 PM »
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?
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 20811
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #19 on: March 08, 2017, 07:42:08 PM »
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.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

The Beerery

  • Guest
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #20 on: March 08, 2017, 08:09:45 PM »
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?   ;)

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 20811
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2017, 08:15:21 PM »
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.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline pkrone

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2017, 09:19:09 PM »
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?
I like beer.  I like to make beer.   I don't like to argue about beer or making beer.

Offline Phil_M

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1760
  • Southern Maryland
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #23 on: March 09, 2017, 02:17:11 AM »
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.
Corn is a fine adjunct in beer.

And don't buy stale beer.

Offline santoch

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
  • North Bend, WA
    • WAHA
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #24 on: March 09, 2017, 02:37:14 AM »
Quote from: denny
...and all thought it was a good example of NEIPA
Mt. Si Brewing Society
Washington Homebrewer's Association (WAHA)
BJCP GM3/Mead Judge

Offline bayareabrewer

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2017, 02:49:06 AM »
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.

Offline BrewnWKopperKat

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2017, 12:06:15 PM »
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?   
They [curiosity and innovation] are alive and doing well in my hobbies.  For me, that's what makes this hobby interesting. 

Offline stpug

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2017, 03:39:43 PM »
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!

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 20811
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2017, 05:05:44 PM »
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?
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline EnkAMania

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 228
Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2017, 05:22:18 PM »
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.
Some day we'll look back on this and it will all seem funny