Brewing Until 2AM? Sure, Sign Me Up

I don't disagree with Mike, I disagree with Phil!

nothing in particular. you just seemed to really disagree with mikes point i wanted to read why you had such a stong opinion.

thanks for the info on the links i will be busy for a bit reading them.

acetylaldehyde and ethyl hexanoate both have apple character, with the prior being green apple, and the former generally associated with sweet apple.

Concentration can make a huge difference, but this is the general observation.

Heck, isoamyl acetate is sometimes described as apple... but the vast majority represents banana bombs.

Ultimately I think the apple quote was characterized incorrectly. Even facts can be taken out of context and cause confusion, as seen by all the testimonials to the contrary. This isn't even something that is isolated to brewing. Einstein spent the end of his life chasing the "Theory of Everything." Even a genius can be wrong.


dk: What exactly are you looking for? An explanation of maillard reaction products? Their differences from caramelization? Chemical flavor profiles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction

http://brewery.org/library/Maillard_CS0497.html

http://www.picobrewery.com/askarchive/melanoidin.htm

There are way too many things to read. I would suggest brewing websites and their message boards for more hands on explanations and anecdotal descriptions.

http://www.brewcrazy.com/hull-olive-oil-thesis.pdf

The last one is a fun read, and can change the way you think about fermentation.

Ultimately the most important thing is to think through what you learn, apply it, and question everything you can.

I'm glad people don't still think the earth is flat, or the center of the universe.

Just a quick point:

What we're doing during our recipe formulation, mash program, boil regiment, and fermentation schedule is providing a set of parameters under which the yeast work. We've seen that, by changing small details, we can get different yeast flavor contributions. For example: Sierra Nevada has found that dryhopping at certain times in the fermentation causes the yeast to produce esters they're unable to create any other way. They've shown a change in wort treatment produces a different yeast result. Previously, it was suggested that dryhopping before fermentation was finished does nothing to the flavor profile other than reduce the flavor impact of the dryhop because it gets degassed. Both schools of thought still exist.

I can't help but feel like a simple change like using heat to molecularly modify the sugars that would be the subject of yeast action might change the flavor profile that comes out of the fermentation.

The point is all the pontification, published references, and mental equation-solving do very little to prove anything when contradicting evidence exists somewhere in the past, present, or future. Some people still insist that secondary fermentation, not rehydrating your dry yeast, shaking your carboy to oxygenate, and always using 3/4 of a cup of sugar to carbonate all styles of beer is a perfect process for creating good beer because some book said they should do those things.

If I were trying to brew something with a specific flavor component and an author - backed up by Brewer's Publications and other brewers much better than I - suggested in his topic-specific book that I might achieve that specific flavor component by an easily-tested technique; I'd give it a shot.

Worst case scenario, we all die. Second-worst case: when compared to the non-long-boil beer, nothing is different. There's only one way to find out.

...I guess it wasn't a quick point - I'm long-winded for sure.

typically i think of apple (non cider drinks) as being not fully fermented, or too much use of cane sugar.

why would the long boil bring out bready nutty? i would think it would give more of a milliard reaction. John palmer says the addition of super heated rocks can add caramel because the sugars directly touching them would carmelize. i understand this was probably during decoction which makes sence because the volumes would be less, and it would also extend the time.

i am interested in reading these articles or writing you are mentioning please help.

Oh no, I'm not saying to get rid of tradition simply because of science, I'm just saying that if their equipment was better the tradition would have never taken root. The reason the Belgians produce such awesome beer is that they were always willing to experiment and didn't confine themselves to pure tradition. That is also why when people talk about the American brewing scene we are most closely identified with the Belgian brewing community.

12 hours is just the tip of the iceberg... they would do crazy 40-hour boils in some cases.

As far as caramelization goes... the flavors and body are different from actual maillard reactions, as well as caramelized sugars, than they are for something like melanoidin malt. What I take exception to is a particular quote in a book that says "apparently" and then goes on to indicate that the apple flavors are definitely coming from caramelization. I can reference countless accounts on boards like this one where people point out the nutty, bready flavors that one would expect in the case of long boils. If apple flavors arise it may in part be due to long boil, but it has far more to do with other processes.

Mike, you don't need to consider friendly debate an attack on you personally.

wow, guys back up a bit.

first mike has been awesome for the club, he assumes we know what we are talking about until we prove otherwise. keep it to the brewing. the personal stuff can stay how.

so paul how do you think you get the caramel flavors, just from the boil or do you think it is todays malts?

i also disagree with the idea of throwing out tradition just for science, maybe in your case due to the need to keep costs down, but for the home brewer tradition is half of the fun!

please just stick to helping us brew better.

group hug. paul have you been to a meeting in a while? i don't belive i met you! hope to see you sometime. thanks guys Dennis

I have never discredited the Muddy River Mashers at any point. They are a group of great brewers, many of them more creative than I will ever be. The purpose of this post was to share my own experiment with all of them since they've done the same for me. I feel both very honored to be their president and am fortunate to have them as a group of peer brewers.

Regarding the information provided/cited, I feel the works of Phil Markowski are well-written and well-researched. Ultimately, I won't know how the boil will affect the taste or attributes of this brew until I actually try it myself. My goal is not to make beers simple and accessible to the lowest common denominator, but instead, I'm trying to continue to learn how various ingredients and techniques play out in the end result.

I feel your response to "call me out" with hearsay was both unprofessional and inappropriate. Simply put, I know what attributes I enjoy in beers and that's what I intend to make. Even you once said that things need to be tested. Unless I'm willing to take risks and endeavor on my own experiments, I'll never know what I'm capable of brewing. The truth is, one can read about brewing for years upon years, but the only real practical experience for the brewer is actually obtained through the act of brewing and self-growth.

Accordingly, and transparently, I will be following up with a flavor profile of the final result. In the spirit of growth and challenge, I may then attempt a repeated batch of this beer with a shorter boil for comparison purposes. That said, I have nothing further to contribute to this discussion.

Did they use heated stones on these long boils as well? Because with the heated rocks you would actually get caramelization due to the extreme heat on the stones. we me get meliniodens that taste caramelly but not actual caramelization right?

again i am asking because in some places i no they did use super heated rocks to maintain the mash temps. this is in regards to this quote

[/quote]"The widely acknowledged benchmark standards, Jenlain Biere de Garde and Theillier's La Bavaisienne, possess a distinct candy apple note, which appears to be the result of caramelization that occurs in the brew kettle as compared with that imparted by specialty malt."
[quote]

i think i screwed up the quote thing.

it does sound a bit like decoction in that some swear by it and other thing you are a moron for continueing to do it.

i am greatfull for the info on both sides, because it is not likley i would be brewing traditional farm house brews any time soon.

Quote :

yeast (style, pitch rate), vessel geometry, pH, dissolved oxygen, nutrition, and fermentation temperature are all huge factors, and in several cases more important factors.

I think your members are smarter than you are giving them credit. I don't think any of those concepts escape them, that is the beauty of todays beer culture.

Quote :

The only information brewers have to reference traditional Belgian brewing are contemporary written works.

This may have been true in 1990, but today information is everywhere. It greatly simplifies the process of learning, and allows people to question what was formerly considered indisputable.


Brewing is special in the number of ways it can be viewed, and enjoyed. Tossing aside science in the name of art is unnecessary.

Quote :

I'll leave you to paint formulation and you can leave me to continue brewing.

In the future, please leave out the personal attacks, unless you want to make the same job based jab at everyone in MRM.

dpnelson1978 wrote:

Why so defensive?

I'm operating on years of knowledge and experience, ranging from reading books, internet research, forum discussion, as well as tasting and brewing Belgian ales. My goal is to brew a passionate, artisan beer in my home, not a product for sale. As both a member, and the president, of the Muddy River Mashers my intention is to introduce homebrewers to new styles and brewing techniques. The only information brewers have to reference traditional Belgian brewing are contemporary written works. If you disagree, and have a better reference, I'd be grateful to know what that is.

Why so defensive?

dpnelson1978 wrote:

There are three pathways for Maillard reactions, one of which is a caramelization reaction catalyzed by amino acids.

The most likely pathway ultimately produces dimethylpyrazines that are nutty and bready.

The perceived sweetness will not change the OG or FG. Your citation has no information regarding unfermentables.
[Edit1: Unclear if unfermentables are created. Way too much conflicting information.]

Edit2: Too much anecdotal BS out there about long boils. Some people swear by it, but most say that as long as you are getting a vigorous boil you will reach a point of diminishing returns and that the marathon sessions of the past were due to direct heating and related inefficiencies. This is something that I will absolutely have to test out.

With all due respect to Phil Markowski, he gave a poor explanation of the formation of apple from caramelization, and offered absolutely nothing to back up the statement. Granted, nitrogen content is known to increase the production of ethyl hexanoate, but yeast (style, pitch rate), vessel geometry, pH, dissolved oxygen, nutrition, and fermentation temperature are all huge factors, and in several cases more important factors. He apparently just says, "well, these breweries caramelize their wort, and the beer has apple notes... it must be because of the caramelization."

That is the main complaint I have about Farmhouse Ales. It is really good from a historical perspective, but offers no direction for further reading and generally just assumes you are going to take everything he says without question.

Say what you will about Phil Markowski's book as a reference, but it is, undisputedly, the best compiled resource available for the brewing of farmhouse ales and I stand by it. In any case, I don't claim to be a chemist, I claim to be a brewer. Though I don't know the minutiae of chemistry and its equations, I do know what's necessary to brew traditional Belgian-style ales. In that regard, I'll leave you to paint formulation and you can leave me to continue brewing.

There are three pathways for Maillard reactions, one of which is a caramelization reaction catalyzed by amino acids.

The most likely pathway ultimately produces dimethylpyrazines that are nutty and bready.

The perceived sweetness will not change the OG or FG. Your citation has no information regarding unfermentables.
[Edit1: Unclear if unfermentables are created. Way too much conflicting information.]

Edit2: Too much anecdotal BS out there about long boils. Some people swear by it, but most say that as long as you are getting a vigorous boil you will reach a point of diminishing returns and that the marathon sessions of the past were due to direct heating and related inefficiencies. This is something that I will absolutely have to test out.

With all due respect to Phil Markowski, he gave a poor explanation of the formation of apple from caramelization, and offered absolutely nothing to back up the statement. Granted, nitrogen content is known to increase the production of ethyl hexanoate, but yeast (style, pitch rate), vessel geometry, pH, dissolved oxygen, nutrition, and fermentation temperature are all huge factors, and in several cases more important factors. He apparently just says, "well, these breweries caramelize their wort, and the beer has apple notes... it must be because of the caramelization."

That is the main complaint I have about Farmhouse Ales. It is really good from a historical perspective, but offers no direction for further reading and generally just assumes you are going to take everything he says without question.

dpnelson1978 wrote:

Sweetness? Shouldn't those particular melanoids be pyrazines that would tend toward nutty and bready? Or is that what you meant?

I don't think OG or FG would be affected by this mechanism.

To substantiate my point, allow me to quote the book "Farmhouse Ales" by Phil Markowski. This particular excerpt is under the section Historic Farmhouse Brewing in the chapter Farmhouse Brewing Then and Now.

"Evans reported that extraordinarily long wort boils were commonplace--as long as nine to twelve hours. Evans remarked that the color of these brews was not nearly as dark as he would have expected and that the brewers sought 'the maximum fullness and sweetness' to compensate for the low original gravities."

As you can see, there is a historical reference for long boils as I had mentioned before. R.E. Evans' report was from 1905 and still relevant to the traditional biere de garde brewing style, since there were a number of farmhouse breweries that hadn't been influenced by the industrial revolution at that time.

In regard to your comment about possible nutty or bready flavors present in biere de garde, here's another excerpt, from the same book, in the chapter Drinking Biere de Garde under the Flavor section:

"The widely acknowledged benchmark standards, Jenlain Biere de Garde and Theillier's La Bavaisienne, possess a distinct candy apple note, which appears to be the result of caramelization that occurs in the brew kettle as compared with that imparted by specialty malt."

One should bear in mind that the reference to caramelization isn't really accurate, insofar that at the temperatures the wort is exposed to during boiling are insufficient to truly caramelize the wort. It's actually the Maillard Reaction, a browning of the wort, which is something different altogether. However, it does essentially create non-fermentable, residual sugars in the wort, thereby affecting potential alcohol and, in association, the gravity. Here's my citation for that:

Caramelizations vs. Melanoidins

Sweetness? Shouldn't those particular melanoids be pyrazines that would tend toward nutty and bready? Or is that what you meant?

I don't think OG or FG would be affected by this mechanism.

dpnelson1978 wrote:

Your "short" boil isn't really a deviation. They only did ultra long boils because their heat transfer completely sucked =p

That's true, they did lack the technology necessary to brew as accurately or consistently as we can today. However, the other reason is that the French preferred the sweetness and drinkability offered by the melanoidins created through the Maillard Reaction occurring in a longer boil. Regardless, the intention was to keep it traditional, and I wasn't going to babysit the boil for as long as 12 hours!

Your "short" boil isn't really a deviation. They only did ultra long boils because their heat transfer completely sucked =p

Here's some more of my unabashed cross-posting from ND Brewers...

Randi and I finished our back to back batches at about 2 o'clock this morning. Since we started at about 3PM on Saturday a fair question would be, "WTF?" Well, I was brewing a traditional biere de garde. This one is going to be as traditional as it gets. I used 6 row barley, grain adjuncts and chaptelizing, as well as homegrown Brewer's Gold and Strisselspalt. I will then follow the primary fermentation with an extended garding period in my oak cask. Unfortunately, some of the old, old biere de garde brewers would do an extended boil for as long as 12 hours. For some reason, I thought 3 hours would be fun. The good news is that it smelled like the Payottenland itself. Mmm.

Randi was brewing her Russian Imperial Stout, which will also be oak aged, and she wanted to ensure a decent gravity as well as some wort caramelization. This translated to a good deal of sparging and lengthy 3 hour boil. The end result was a wort that tasted great, but I think we learned something else too. Don't brew these types of beers back to back, or you'll end up with a boil time that is as long as one person's brew day alone. Still, I'm looking forward to what will come out as the end result. Just a friendly word of warning!