Boil time - 60 vs 90 ?

I've searched a bit and looked at "How to Brew" and The Complete Joy of Homebrewing? and can't find any information on boil times.

I'm curios as to what is going on that makes you want a longer boil on say an IPA vs a Pale Ale (90 vs 60 minutes). It seems you don't gain much with hop utilization beyond 60 minutes. The IPA I did didn't call for adding hops until the 60 minute remaining mark anyway. I'm guessing it has something to do with higher gravity beers.

Laymen terms would be better for me...

There are three reasons I use a longer boil- one is if I'm making a "bigger" beer and want to boil it down more. If I want a more carmelized wort, I've boiled longer. The other is if I use pilsner malt in the mash. Pilsner malt is notorious for producing DMS, so a longer boil is advised to boil off as much DMS as possible.

IMHO, a 90 minute boil is only necessary when using Pilsner malt, as Yooper has stated. I rarely use it however, and in all my brews with regular two-row I only boil for 60 minutes. Haven't had DMS issues yet.

I use a 90 minute boil to help with break formation and removal.

That is for the first 15, I skim the break as it foams on the surface without the risk of losing any hop material (except if I FWH). Prolly a twitchy practice but it works for me and my beers became clearer as a result without the need for kettle or cold finings.

At 60, I pitch for bittering and let it go from there.

I always do 90 min boils. I like to be on the safe side with DMS, and I like higher gravity beers. Also it gives me 30 min to scramble around thinking about what to do next :-D

I seem to get better results with longer, more vigorous boils. I wait for the hot break then start the timer. 30min after the break I add my bitter hops and go 60 min from there.

GilaMinumBeer said:

That is for the first 15, I skim the break as it foams on the surface without the risk of losing any hop material (except if I FWH). Prolly a twitchy practice but it works for me and my beers became clearer as a result without the need for kettle or cold finings.

Click to expand...

I'd like to hear more about this practice. you actually remove the foam?

As far as hops utilization goes, you get a slight increase in a 90 minute boil, but by the time you add in your time and fuel, I don't think you are gaining anything. However, as mentioned above, a 90 minute boil is very useful when using pilsner malt (to ensure DMS removal) or other very light beers. IMHO when I use a 90 minute boil on lighter beers it seems much "crisper" than when I use a 60 minute boil.

As a personal rule of thumb, if I am making a really light, dry, crisp beer, I use a 90 minute low-temp mash and a 90 minute boil. Otherwise I stick with the good 'ole 60 minute boil + whatever mash profile for the style I want to do.

Hope this helps!

I agree with the 90 minute boil for Pilsen based beers. That said, normally after I finish draining my mash I go and clean my mash tun and ready some other things for the rest of the brew day, occasionally checking my keggle. I'd say I probably average a 75 minute boil for non-pilsen based beers.

enohcs said:

I'd like to hear more about this practice. you actually remove the foam?

Click to expand...

Gila will have to answer for Gila, but I sure do. It's gone and separated itself out, I help the process along by removing it. Doesn't amount to much loss of wort, done correctly.