90 min. boil cons and pros

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Chefjp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
144
Reaction score
1
Location
guadalajara
hello, i´ve brewed a stone IPA clone, from BYO. it calls for a 90 min. boil with 2 hops at 90 min.
can some one tell me the pros and cons of doing a 90 min. boil?

thanks
 
hello, i´ve brewed a stone IPA clone, from BYO. it calls for a 90 min. boil with 2 hops at 90 min.
can some one tell me the pros and cons of doing a 90 min. boil?

thanks

Some pros: slightly more hops utilization, maybe some more maillard reactions and darkening of the wort, increased boil-off, increased vaporization of DMS precursors.

cons: the same.
 
Some pros: slightly more hops utilization, maybe some more maillard reactions and darkening of the wort, increased boil-off, increased vaporization of DMS precursors.

cons: the same.

Other cons: Propane usage (or whatever energy source you use), time spent.

But get one creamy corned blond ale and you won't care about the cons. DMS sucks.
 
If you have any significant amount of Pils malt especially in a recipe I'd always use a 90 minute. Pils puts off a lot of DMS, and the 90 minute boil should get rid of it all. There aren't any serious reasons I've seen not to do a 90 except propane usage.
 
I've only ever used an extended boil to get to my desired batch volume. It was for a Belgian-style Pale Ale and I didn't notice any flavors that would be characteristic of excessive Maillard reactions or scorching. That beer is still bottle conditioning, so the final verdict isn't out yet. We'll see.
 
Longer boils lower PH levels, created greater coagulation of protiens, better hop utilization, greater removal of dms...and in terms of malliard reactions, longer boils will bring out stronger characteristics of the grains. Randy Mosher said that a 120 minute boil is a "go around" instead of doing decoctions but getting similar results.

90 minutes is now my minumim boil time...
 
Longer boils lower PH levels, created greater coagulation of protiens, better hop utilization, greater removal of dms...and in terms of malliard reactions, longer boils will bring out stronger characteristics of the grains. Randy Mosher said that a 120 minute boil is a "go around" instead of doing decoctions but getting similar results.

90 minutes is now my minumim boil time...

I think several brewers I know typically do 90 minute boils. I still do 60 minute boils, except for beers with lots of pilsner malt.

I think it would be a great experiment for someone to do the same beer with a 60 minute boil and a 90 or 120 minute boil, and check pH going into the kettle, after a 60 minute boil, and after 120 minute boil, and then measure the amount of break material somehow. That would be really cool, to see the differences.
 
For an extract batch - basically no pros.

For an all-grain batch - Better break and DSM elimination.

Additionally, a longer boil can be useful for "big beers". Your efficiency always drops as the grain bill increases. An easy workaround is to increase mash and sparge volumes and then just boil down to the right batch volume. That concentrates the larger wort volume and gets some extra points on your OG.
 
If you have any significant amount of Pils malt especially in a recipe I'd always use a 90 minute. Pils puts off a lot of DMS, and the 90 minute boil should get rid of it all.

This is the conventional wisdom, but a number of brewers do hard, 60min boil and have no DMS issues. I believe Denny is one of them.
 
Back
Top