Malliard Reaction

[tarcrarc]

I'm finalizing the recipe for an upcoming porter. Looking for a real rich flavor, big body, but within the 5-6% range. Question: I've never pulled out a gallon during the boil and boiled it real hard elsewhere to obtain a more defined malliard reaction before returning it to the main boil. Does this seem like a plan for such a porter as described? The current recipe is something along the lines of Denny's Vanilla/Bourbon porter without the vanilla or bourbon and with the addition of a few tweaks. Any thoughts?

 

[specharka]

I'm finalizing the recipe for an upcoming porter. Looking for a real rich flavor, big body, but within the 5-6% range. Question: I've never pulled out a gallon during the boil and boiled it real hard elsewhere to obtain a more defined malliard reaction before returning it to the main boil. Does this seem like a plan for such a porter as described? The current recipe is something along the lines of Denny's Vanilla/Bourbon porter without the vanilla or bourbon and with the addition of a few tweaks. Any thoughts?

I’ve done it, it’s definitely not necessary for brewing a porter. I doubt you would notice anything beyond the specialty malt presentation your recipe indicates. If you’re doing an English barleywine it’s a good way to get caramelized tones without having a cloyingly sweet finish. YMMV

 

[roadkizzle]

I don't think taking any wort out of the boil just to boil it will necessarily do anything special.

What do you think that boiling wort will do that boiling wort doesn't already do?

There is a LOT of convection, liquid movement during the boil. The liquid can't get over 212 Fahrenheit because there is water in there evaporating. Boiling faster doesn't get the water hotter it just evaporates at a faster rate.

My understanding is that Maillard reactions don't start happening until after around ~250 degrees.

If you boil the wort long enough to remove the water then you'll have a syrup which can get hot enough to achieve Maillard or caramelization or burnt...

 

[Smellyglove]

Maillard happens at boiling temperatures, and even lower too. Just try it if you want first hand proof. A long boiled wort will be way more thick than a shorter boiled wort, where both worts end up at the same SG.

If you want it really "big" and thick, boil it for an extended time, 3-4 hours with a "normal" boil, not over the top boil. Boil time and boil intensity are connected. More intensive boil means you can boil it shorter. It will be thicker than the same recipe boiled for just 60 minutes.

But I don't feel myself that this is appropriate for a straight porter. Porters are usually easy drinking.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

But I don't feel myself that this is appropriate for a straight porter. Porters are usually easy drinking.

Historically extended boils of 2-3 hours were normal - sometimes more. Invert sugars or melanoidin can provide some equivalent flavours.

As so often, the OP is massively overcomplicating what are at heart really simple beers. Historically porter was just pale malt, brown malt and black malt. Say 86:10:4, although it varied through history. Around 1.060 OG, BU:GU around 1.0, a nice low-attenuating and characterful British yeast, job done.

 

[Smellyglove]

Historically extended boils of 2-3 hours were normal - sometimes more. Invert sugars or melanoidin can provide some equivalent flavours.

As so often, the OP is massively overcomplicating what are at heart really simple beers. Historically porter was just pale malt, brown malt and black malt. Say 86:10:4, although it varied through history. Around 1.060 OG, BU:GU around 1.0, a nice low-attenuating and characterful British yeast, job done.

I agree. Although I'm not on the same ship when you say "historically", since he is brewing in 2018 and not 1902. One could do whatever one want to a recipe, but the effects of different boiling is still there.

 

[@RoyalGallon]

I've done some work developing a Thermal process flavour which is basically a controlled Maillard reaction to create a specific flavour. So I did have a bit of knowledge around the reaction pathways.

Fundamentally you get different flavours and colour being created based on three things - water content, temperature and pH.

Water content & temp are often interlinked as when boiling you generally stay at 100C until the solids content starts to increase - but it could be increased - and flavours improved - by boiling under pressure.

The other way to change the flavours made is to adjust the pH. You will get different flavour profiles by decreasing the pH substantially - perhaps add Acetic acid. Or taking it above 7.0 - Sodium or Potassium hydroxide (Only a drop mind).

The flavours made will be created by a different pathways and so have a different profile due to the resultant molecules being very different.

Another way would be to spike the wort before boiling with different Reducing sugars. You will have an excess of Maltose but adding Fructose, Glucose or Lactose will change the flavour too. Different concentrations will give different profiles.

As the colour changes from a reddish to a more blueish hue the flavour molecules are polymerising to give melanoidins. These have a bitter characteristic. You know like dark malts!

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Although I'm not on the same ship when you say "historically", since he is brewing in 2018 and not 1902.

The historical examples give you an "anchor" when using a word to describe a beer. I could use pilsner malt and unicorn tears to make a beer and call it a porter, but it wouldn't match up with the expectations of other people when they hear the word "porter".

And I've had some of those historical recipes and they're delicious, too often people try and complicate things without any benefit to the taste, which is what matters, right?

 

[Smellyglove]

The historical examples give you an "anchor" when using a word to describe a beer. I could use pilsner malt and unicorn tears to make a beer and call it a porter, but it wouldn't match up with the expectations of other people when they hear the word "porter".

And I've had some of those historical recipes and they're delicious, too often people try and complicate things without any benefit to the taste, which is what matters, right?

I dont directly disagree with you, we are still friends. But Historically a dark english beer could be made out of just "brown" malt. Modern dark english beers are not made with brown malt.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Historically a dark english beer could be made out of just "brown" malt. Modern dark english beers are not made with brown malt.

That's because "brown malt" means different things. Modern brown malt is kilned hotter, which makes it "roastier" and kills the enzymes meaning you can't use it as a base malt. Pre-Napoleonic porters/stouts were made from a diastatic brown malt that still had enzyme activity. So yeah, if the OP wants to simplify the recipe further and just use 100% straw-kilned diastatic brown malt, then he's welcome to go for it!

 

[roadkizzle]

Maillard happens at boiling temperatures, and even lower too. Just try it if you want first hand proof. A long boiled wort will be way more thick than a shorter boiled wort, where both worts end up at the same SG.

If you want it really "big" and thick, boil it for an extended time, 3-4 hours with a "normal" boil, not over the top boil. Boil time and boil intensity are connected. More intensive boil means you can boil it shorter. It will be thicker than the same recipe boiled for just 60 minutes.

But I don't feel myself that this is appropriate for a straight porter. Porters are usually easy drinking.

That is NOT a Maillard reaction. That is just boiling the water from a liquid. It is just reducing the water content from the wort.

If you made 10 gallons of 1.025 wort then boiled it for a few hours to get 5 gallons of 1.050 would it be noticably different than just boiling for 30 minutes to get the 5 gallons of 1.050 wort?

What I've seen says not really.

Now this concentration is really useful because it's a lot easier to get water to extract enough sugar to raise the density to 1.050 and it's extremely difficult to get it to extract enough to raise it to more than 1.100

So if you're making a barleywine or other big beer you can pull off a lot of low strength liquid and boil it long enough to concentrate it into a high OG wort. But all this is doing is concentrating the sugar content of the liquid.

Now as the other poster said you can create pressure to keep the water from boiling and get the wort to sit at a high enough temperature for the Maillard reaction or there may be other things that you can add that facilitates the reactions to get them happening sooner.

But I don't think that just doing a normal boiling of wort would do this.

 

[Smellyglove]

That is NOT a Maillard reaction. That is just boiling the water from a liquid. It is just reducing the water content from the wort.

If you made 10 gallons of 1.025 wort then boiled it for a few hours to get 5 gallons of 1.050 would it be noticably different than just boiling for 30 minutes to get the 5 gallons of 1.050 wort?

I've said my experiences between boiling up to 5 hrs and 1hr, to reach the same gravity. You're example is spot on when it comes to a huge difference in mouthfeel and taste

Try it yourself. Target OG is x. use different amount of water. The long boil will be way more thicker than the batch which is boiled for 60 minutes, volume and OG is the same.

To answer your question directly. Yes, the difference would be huge.

 

[specharka]

That's because "brown malt" means different things. Modern brown malt is kilned hotter, which makes it "roastier" and kills the enzymes meaning you can't use it as a base malt. Pre-Napoleonic porters/stouts were made from a diastatic brown malt that still had enzyme activity. So yeah, if the OP wants to simplify the recipe further and just use 100% straw-kilned diastatic brown malt, then he's welcome to go for it!

Leave it to the French to adulterate a traditional English beer style. Bastards.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Leave it to the French to adulterate a traditional English beer style. Bastards.

Well, it was a combination of the malt taxes needed to kill more French, and the invention of the hydrometer which made people realise how inefficient diastatic brown malt was at generating sugar, when they could use a much smaller amount of pale malt for the same ABV.

But blaming the French for the demise of tradition is always a safe bet!