For years I’ve been boiling for just over 60 minutes. For some unknown reason, I’ve always waited to add my boil hops until the protein foam settles in, which usually takes about 5 minutes. Lately I’ve come to the conclusion that perhaps I only need to boil for 45 minutes, or maybe now, maybe only 30 minutes. For the past couple of batches I boiled just 45 minutes, which is good enough for hop utilization, and now, apparently for DMS as well. Depending on desire for hop utilization specific to each batch, I might cut all batches back to 30 minutes now. Or maybe 40 or 45. Somewhere in there. Because, why not.
i think i may shift to 70 min boils now - at least for me, with the surging hot break, its a PITA to try and get the hops that get stuck on the edges of my kettle back into the boil. much easier to wait until the HB is over.
I don’t really see much need to go lower than that - i need time to get everything together anyways…
Well, I eat crow.
All you guys are getting googly-eyed over the data, and I have one question to ask about the equipment used in this experiment: “Does that thing come turbo-charged?”
Just ask the 2 yutes
I do want to point out again that boil length is only going to be correlated to DMS volatilization for a given kettle setup. Marshall’s kettle is able to reach 9% boil off in 30 min; if you’re boiling off significantly less than that you may need to boil longer.
Of course. I can get a turbo boil going and have a 15% boil off/hour if need be. I’m switching down to 60’, still want all the hot break out of the beer that I can get out of it.
This is, as frank Zappa said, the crux of the biscuit.
DMS does certainly exist. A few years back a buddy got a bag of malt that he used on two consecutive brews. Both rotten with DMS. He bought a new bag of the same malt and maltster, but from a different shop, and there was no DMS. Maybe he just had terrible luck.
One of the things I always enjoyed about Mythbusters is that if a myth was busted, they often took the extra step to produce the desired results. A lot of the xBmt’s target brewing myths and many seem to be showing no significant difference between the beers. A cool followup would be to see what it does take to actually make a discernible difference.
It seems counter-intuitive to try to make bad beer intentionally, but I think that may help those that are having a hard time letting go of the old myths. For example, if a short boil doesn’t cause DMS, then what does? A covered boil? Only certain types of grain? Slow chilling? Covered chilling? I think that is the next step if you really want to drill down further.
As always, the hallmark of good science is that it prompts more question than it answers. You’re doing great work, Marshall. Thanks for putting it out there for everyone!
That’s a great idea.
is it the rate or total volume that is important here? and is that an hourly rate, or total? I’m sorry I don’t see that info in the write up? Man that is quick boil off - i boil off about 2 gal an hour, 15gal starting BV. But then again i guess it would be an even higher rate if starting at 8.
I like this idea too. And of course anyone with the time can try it.
I average 32% boiloff per hour. 'Course, I’m only brewing 1.7 gallons at a time, too.
Boiloff rates in % are not very helpful, honestly. Need gallons/hour.
THIS^^^^
~2 gal/hour here.
I wonder if the German Brewers asked the Mlatsters to malt lower SMM pills malt to save on energy costs? Don’t know if it possible to do that, but with the energy costs in Germany, it would be a savings.
senken sie den Mais!!
Energiewende put a hurtin’ on their boil times.
I backed that particular number out of the other information in the post: 30 min boil, 1 gal/hr evaporation, 5.5 gal final volume. It’s proportional; somewhere around 5-10% evaporation is needed to achieve the desired boil off of DMS. The Siebel coursework recommends a minimum of 8%, just to give one example.
This is a great example of what Denny’s been talking about: an important variable being misunderstood (attributed to time instead of evaporation) and then endlessly repeated. It isn’t that the science is flawed, it just isn’t a concern for systems using such powerful burners.