60 vs 90 minute boils

Do you typically run a 60 minute boil or a 90 minute boil, or "depends"? What beers do you make with each? What are the pros and cons to each boil time as you understand them?

Hoping to gain a little insight.

There are several reasons for a boil and the boil time.

• Hop utilisation.
• Driving off unwanted volatile compounds
• Concentrating the wort to increase the gravity.
• Coagulating proteins to help clear the beer.
• It also gives us the chance to play with burners and pots and stuff. (My favourite reason)

60 to 90 minutes allows all of these to happen at a rate that is easy to achieve and is reasonably economical on time and energy.
I go for 60 minutes because I like to reduce my brewing time if I can. I can also get the reduction in wort that I need in that time scale.
If you need to reduce more or do not have a set up that can manage the requirement that you need then go for 90 minutes.

As always in brewing there is rarely a definitive "right" or "best" way. It depends on the equipment, the recipe and most of all. How the brewer wants to do it.

Have you noticed that on asking a question about brewing you are more likely to get an opinion than and answer.

I use a 90 minute boil for larger IPA (much of what I brew). It allows more runoff time (get those last few sugars out of the grain) and significantly increased hop utilization.

There's little point unless you're into beers that're >1.070 or so unless you're going for the extra IBUs. (Ok, so that was kinda arbitrary, but its seemed to work well for me)

-D

I have noticed that. The question I believe is geared more toward an opiniated answer anyhow. I usually end up boiling for about 75 minutes or so because I don't start the 60 minute countdown till after the hotbreak settles down a bit.

When you say hop utilization I assume this means more hop profile from what hops are added during the boil?

I usually boil for 10 minutes before starting my 60 minute hop additions to start a good hot break and I add 20 extra minutes to my bittering time when using a pils malt.

I try to keep my boils to 60 minutes but when I do a big AG batch I end up with a lot of wort that has to be boiled down. For those batches I end up doing 90 minute boils or more. I always start my hop additions at 60 minutes remaining.

Ok, this might be redundant and far too obvious to be brought up, but I'll put it out there anyways...

So when do you fellas consider the boil has begun? Does everyone agree the boil time starts when the pot boils? Or when the pot goes on burner?

I don't start counting boil time until there is a vigorous boil going.

I count after the hot break. That's when I throw the hops in, usually. I almost always do 60 minute boils.

Yooper Chick said:

I count after the hot break. That's when I throw the hops in, usually. I almost always do 60 minute boils.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

Unless I FWH

orfy said:

Have you noticed that on asking a question about brewing you are more likely to get an opinion than and answer.

Click to expand...

Yup, and that opinion is always the ONLY way to do it!


Well, that's my opinion, anyway......




BTW i'm guilty of that too.......

Well, there really ISN'T a right "answer," (in my humble OPINION...)

One thing to keep in mind; some malts, notably pilsner malts, can produce higher amounts of DMS and can therefore benefit from a longer boil time. You'll also get a little bit more hops utilization if you boil them for 90 minutes, although the difference is pretty small at that point.

Key Success Factors in Brewing Scottish-Style and Scotch Ales

...extend the boiling time to encourage caramelization during the boil.

-- From "Designing Great Beers" by Ray Daniels

A boil begins when bubbles break surface.

Why am I thinking "Bath time"?

All grain brewer and I do 90 minute boils, timer starts after the hot break and the first hops go in at the 60 minute mark. I've done 60 minute boils and though I can't prove it I feel that 90 minute boils make better beer no matter how light or how big. If I ever did an extract beer I'd probably go with a 60 minute boil I don't think they gain anything from an extended boil.

I do 90 as well. I plan on it, so my pre boil gravity is where I want it to be, so I end up with the right volume of wort with my intended OG. Unless your FWH, 90 or 60 will get you the same hop utilization, as most start their hopping at 60 anyway.

When I made the 666 brew I ended up with 10 gallons of wort and boiled it down to 5 . . . it was a 240 minute boil.

For me it all depends on the brew I am making and more impotrantly the amount of wort I get from my mashtun. One of the beers I am looking to make (after researching the Dragons Milk) is calling for 29lbs of grain. No matter how I try to mash or sparge I think I'm going to end up with a 14gallon boil and will have to boil that bad boy down for a LONG LONG time

Pumbaa said:

When I made the 666 brew I ended up with 10 gallons of wort and boiled it down to 5 . . . it was a 240 minute boil.

Click to expand...

How'd it turn out? I'd think the FG would be kinda on the high side due to carmelization.

mew said:

How'd it turn out? I'd think the FG would be kinda on the high side due to carmelization.

Click to expand...

I'm kinda biased . . .

Rhoobarb said:

St. Fuad Imperial Hellfire Ale

Pour/Appearance:
Nice pffft sound. Poured a nice head which soon dissipated. Nicely carbonated. Hazy amber color.

Aroma:
Resiny, oak aroma. So far, this version is just like the one I brewed!

Taste:
The first taste is the oak up front, then a heavy malt flavor comes through. Oak taste is less pronounced than my version, which is good. Mine was too overpowering, IMHO. This is closer to the mark! Very robust with a nice, heavy mouthfeel. Warm, slightly buttery finish – not thinking this is diacetyl, but more the mixture of the heavy malt and oak playing off of each other. We both enjoyed the finish, so there ya go!

Overall:
This is a nice ‘sipping ale’. Perfect for watching the sunset on a cool Spring or Autumn evening (which is what we did!). I wished the version I brewed had more of the flavor profile your's had. Well done, indeed.

Click to expand...

ScoutMan said:

Pour/Appearance: Perfect carbonation level, Carmel/Amber color that leaned towards brown. Fairly hazy, but no floaties. I had very good lacing from this beer.


Aroma: Sweet, caramel smell. I got both raisin and a faint orange smell. There was something I couldn't identify, but after reading Rhoobarb's post, this must have been the oak.

Taste: Very malty. Kind of a winter warmer type of beer. Full bodied beer that finished with a taste that I can only describe as somewhat "scotch like". Not overpowering by any means. Very good.

Overall A great beer, and one that I will try to duplicate. Would be great with a meal of elk stew and a big roaring fire.

Click to expand...

the only time I go longer than 60 is to boil down to get the right amount of wort

but all of the above are good reasons