So it seems like everything I read says to boil for 90 mins to reduce DMS. Should this be done for all beers? Are there any disadvantage to 90 minute boil in comparison to 60 minute boils? Any styles of beer not suited for 90 minute boil?
90 Minute Boil, the new 60 minute boil?
- Thread starter mgo737
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
llazy_llama
Well-Known Member
The 90 minute boil isn't going to hurt anything in most recipes, except for maybe your propane/electric/natrual gas budget. Really, unless it's a recipe that's at high risk for DMS (most lagers, a low gravity cream or kolsch, or something with a large amount of adjuncts) I wouldn't sweat it. As a propane user, it just isn't worth the extra money on something that I've never had a problem with.
Donner
Well-Known Member
Brew Strong did an episode on DMS. They basically said that all malts will have the things that cause DMS, but certain malts, like Pilsner malt (i believe) contain more of the things that cause DMS and that longer boils (90 min) will remove these precursors.
Short answer is that some malts require longer boils while most do not as long as you are doing the other things like (like chilling your wort to below a certain temp quickly to keep DMS from forming).
Short answer is that some malts require longer boils while most do not as long as you are doing the other things like (like chilling your wort to below a certain temp quickly to keep DMS from forming).
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
I always boil 90 minutes, and have been creating my new recipes with 100 minute boils.
I also NO CHILL my beer so I have special interest in driving off SMM and DMS
Granted I also use all electric, so it is cheap for me to add boil time
I also NO CHILL my beer so I have special interest in driving off SMM and DMS
Granted I also use all electric, so it is cheap for me to add boil time
Evan!
Well-Known Member
Why........?
llazy_llama
Well-Known Member
Ooooh, look at me, I'm electric, I don't chill, I'm soooo special!
Hahahahahahahahahaaaahaahahah.
Oh phew, I'm glad I didn't have a mouthfull of beer when I read that.
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
Why not???
carnevoodoo
Well-Known Member
I think he likes feeling special and different.
Chello
Well-Known Member
polecreek
Well-Known Member
electricity cheap? efficient for heating I say B.S.
LooyvilleLarry
Well-Known Member
Compared to what? A tank of propane here costs 27.00. I get maybe 4 brews.
Electric costs (for heating only to compare apples) figure out to be about $2.85 for brew & HERMS.
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
FWIW there are a slew of brewers on HBT that use electric.
Also, $1-$2 for electricity per brew is pretty easy to achieve.
I used to spend $18 for a propane tank, and get 4 SOLID brews out if it.
Electricity is cheap, and most of the HERMS and RIMS brewers I know use it.
My point was... for some, longer boils arent efficient, they are costly. When I used propane Id only boil 60 mins. When I went to electric, then I started to boil longer, because it isnt nearly as costly, that is a consideration.
polecreek
Well-Known Member
What is the cost per kwh where you live? How are you figuring how many kwh you use? My cost on propane is much cheaper where I live. I would think have a faster boil time then electric.
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
No, because people said it wouldnt work, without having any practical experience with it. Just trying to prevent the spread of mis-information.
I dunnoh.
Maybe cuz I'd prefer to have my beer in the fermenter and chugging along with yeast pitched...all inside of 4 1/2 hours?
Not that I don't like to think outside the box. I just did a no-boil Berliner Wiess this afternoon. It's a coin flip as to whether it will be astounding...or just ass.
Seriously. What's the gain to no-chill brewing. What are the risks?
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
There are online spreadhseets that calculate electric heating times/kwh useage with different size elements. That is how myself and lrr81765 figured our heating requirements on our HERMS.
I reach a boil from 150F in about 10 minutes with a volume of 8 gallons. That is plenty fast for me.
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
There are multiple threads on the No Chill thing... they address both of those questions. I also have an article hitting Brewer's Friend, home brewing resources in the coming week that covers it and the practical use of it.
The beer is no different. It takes one less piece of equipment, it saves some water, some time and releives me of the need to string a hose out to the spigot in 10F weather in the winter.
Also, the fermentor gets santized with heat, the wort is never cooled in the open where it is susceptible to infection... again, it cant be done, I know I know.
llazy_llama
Well-Known Member
For what little it's worth (and mostly just to clarify my standpoint) I have tried the NO CHILL method, and after about 18 hours of room temp chilling to bring my wort to pitching temp, I had a painfully slow fermentation. I must note that this was only one attempt, and it was with an unfamiliar yeast and an unfamiliar recipe, so my results can in no way contribute meaningfully.
I do, however, have free electricity until 2011, so I am a big supporter of electric brewing. I will point out that unless you have some basic DIY skill and a rough knowledge of electrical work, an all-electric system is going to cost you out the wazoo. In my particular case, I have a rough knowledge of electrical work, but anything I DIY'ed would likely get me kicked out of my house. Different strokes for different folks.
Anyway, sorry for the thread hijack. We now return you to your regularly scheduled brewcasting.
polecreek
Well-Known Member
Would you say a electric hot water heater is more effiient then a propane one?
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
Never built one. But I have built both propane and electric brew rigs.
Here's the only part I saw on cooling wort. Granted I did a quick scan...I might have overlooked it.
[EDIT]
Found some more...
llazy_llama
Well-Known Member
That depends very much on your definiton of effeciency. Is time the biggest factor? What wattage electric heater are we talking about? What BTU is the propane burner rated at? Are we talking about degrees of heat per hour? Per dollar? Carbon footprint?
Too many variables involved to answer your question in the format it was presented in.
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
For what little it's worth (and mostly just to clarify my standpoint) I have tried the NO CHILL method, and after about 18 hours of room temp chilling to bring my wort to pitching temp, I had a painfully slow fermentation. I must note that this was only one attempt, and it was with an unfamiliar yeast and an unfamiliar recipe, so my results can in no way contribute meaningfully.
My no chills have started fermenting within 6-7 hours after pitching, fermented just as quickly as previous conventionally chilled beers and finished at the same OG. So, I dunno
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
Yeah, there are a couple LARGE threads here concerning no chill brewing. Yah yah... you HAVE to cool the wort quickly. Oh, and I forgot, you HAVE to add the water to the grain when you mash in too (Palmer)... there are a lot of "rules" out there that arent worh the paper they are written on IMHO.
I can read, but I dont take what I read as the end all. Heck, the world would still be "flat".
Also, your second quote is right, but no one is cooling thier beer in the open... that would be stupid, agreed. No chill takes place when boiling hot wort is sealed in a container.
llazy_llama
Well-Known Member
As I mentioned, it was only once, with an unfamiliar yeast, an unfamiliar recipe, and an unfamiliar technique (no chilling). I was unsatisfied with the results. In this particular case, a recipe that I was told takes about 2 months to ferment fully has been going for just over 3 now. But again, none of this was standardized in any way, so my results shouldn't be included.
....okaaaaayyyy...
I'm not trying to argue. Those quotes came from the link you provided.
I'm just trying to make sure I haven't overlooked benefits that I could take advantage of. If water is an issue...understood. Fortunately, water here is dirt cheap since we're at the confluence of two major rivers. I don't have an issue with the elements and garden hoses since I brew indoors. As far as saving time, how is that possible when you're extending the total process out several hours...most likely into the next day?
Couple of issues come to mind:
Cold break. How do you achieve if the wort is allowed to drift slowly down to pitching temp?
Final pitching temp. Are you parking your wort where the ambient is low enough to bring the wort down to sufficiently low pitching temps?
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
You didnt read what I posted. I am posting an article in the coming WEEK to that website concerning no chill, and actual brewing notes from no chill. It is not posted yet. HBT contains TONS of info on no chill.
It does save time.... because allowing it to cool in a temperature controlled 65F environment doesnt take my time or attention. It just sits there. That is like saying that using a secondary "takes more time" because it is in the secondary for a couple weeks. You arent sitting there watching it.
It takes 24 hours for a 5 gallon brew to reach pitching temps. During this time a starter created from the actual wort of the brew, gets churning to pitch after 24 hours.
There is no "cold break" with no chill.
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
FWIW, my cost per kwh is:
$.126
I can run 5500W for THREE HOURS non stop for $2.09
My HLT costs $.28 per brew session to run
My BK costs $.90 for a 100 minute boil
Total brew session cost to run the HERMS: $1.18
Ironic. Once I drop in my chiller and turn on the water...mine just sits there too...for about 30 minutes. That's my well deserved nap time.
How do you get your beer clear with no coagulation of the protein-polyphenols and beta-glucans?
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
Ironic. Once I drop in my chiller and turn on the water...mine just sits there too...for about 30 minutes. That's my well deserved nap time.
How do you get your beer clear with no coagulation of the protein-polyphenols and beta-glucans?
I dunno, it is PFM!
Look, no chill isnt any better than chilling. It is just different.
HERMS isnt any better than single infusion in a cooler. It is just different.
Electric isnt any better than propane. It is just different.
All of the above are only chosen based on the goals of the individual brewer.
Now that we are WAYYYY off topic.
Yeah...I'm afraid we left the topic path some time ago. I'll have to give myself an infraction.
As far as "different"?
- I put clear bottles of perfectly good beer in the sun to intentionally skunk them cuz I like Heineken.
- I once took a perfectly good 5-gallon batch of an Anchor clone and reheated it to 174 degrees to boil off the alcohol and make an NA.
- I'm on my 11th generation harvest of a safale-05 yeast packet because I'm so freakin cheap.
- Just this afternoon I tossed in a half pound of raw grains into some fresh wort because I didn't have any commercial bugs for a Berliner Weisse.
So yeah, I appreciate different.
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
Yeah...I'm afraid we left the topic path some time ago. I'll have to give myself an infraction.
As far as "different"?
- I put clear bottles of perfectly good beer in the sun to intentionally skunk them cuz I like Heineken.
- I once took a perfectly good 5-gallon batch of an Anchor clone and reheated it to 174 degrees to boil off the alcohol and make an NA.
- I'm on my 11th generation harvest of a safale-05 yeast packet because I'm so freakin cheap.
- Just this afternoon I tossed in a half pound of raw grains into some fresh wort because I didn't have any commercial bugs for a Berliner Weisse.
So yeah, I appreciate different.
Much of this plays into my desire to push the envelope a little. Like you. I mean people told me it wouldnt work at all. So I had to do it. Then I started messing with the process to make it even more suitable for my needs.
The experiment continues. My SNPA Clone will be judged by a BJCP judge along side an identical brew that was whirlpool IC chilled. A couple of us are trying to gather as much data as possible to really put this method through the wringer.
That being said, my IC was sold this week.
Then how's this.
If you load up a box with several of your finest HB's and ship it to me via UPS...I'm telling you it will absolutely, positively not make it to my home and I will not be able to crack and enjoy. It simply will not work.
There. You have your challenge.
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
Then how's this.
If you load up a box with several of your finest HB's and ship it to me via UPS...I'm telling you it will absolutely, positively not make it to my home and I will not be able to crack and enjoy. It simply will not work.
There. You have your challenge.
I was in St Louis at Flight Safety just 2 days ago!
I completely admire The Pol, for putting the No Chill method "Through the ringer". I live in Melbourne, where we are experiencing the worst drought in about 110 years. Our water levels are at 27.5% capacity. For instance, our biggest reservoir has a capacity of 1,068,000 litres. It is sitting at 187,462.
So yeah, we do not have the luxury of putting 50-60 litres of water down the drain. Hence the no chill method came about. It makes perfect sense here. Over in the U.S, I cannot see the enviromental advantage, but I do have to admit, that it does save time on your brew day. You just drain from the kettle, let sit and clean up. Put outside and let 'chill' next morning, pour and pitch
Back to the original topic:
90 minute versus 60 minute boil.
Once again, the difference in countries is shown in my answer. Generally when you boil, it is so that you get hop isomerization. I,E getting the oils in the hops to leech out, and mix with the wort etc etc. This happens at a lower then boiling temperature. The reason for a "vigorous" boil, is to drive of the DMS. This is found in all malts, but especially in American and European Pilsner malts. However, in Australian Malts, there are much less pre-cursors for DMS, particularly in Pilsner malts.
This is the main reason that we can No-Chill even lagers, without worrying about DMS build up in the slow cooling wort. If we use American Malts for out brews, then this does become a concern. So, hence you need a 90 minute boil to drive off alot of the DMS precursor.
Hope I answered your question atleast half intelligently.
Cheers
So yeah, we do not have the luxury of putting 50-60 litres of water down the drain. Hence the no chill method came about. It makes perfect sense here. Over in the U.S, I cannot see the enviromental advantage, but I do have to admit, that it does save time on your brew day. You just drain from the kettle, let sit and clean up. Put outside and let 'chill' next morning, pour and pitch
Back to the original topic:
90 minute versus 60 minute boil.
Once again, the difference in countries is shown in my answer. Generally when you boil, it is so that you get hop isomerization. I,E getting the oils in the hops to leech out, and mix with the wort etc etc. This happens at a lower then boiling temperature. The reason for a "vigorous" boil, is to drive of the DMS. This is found in all malts, but especially in American and European Pilsner malts. However, in Australian Malts, there are much less pre-cursors for DMS, particularly in Pilsner malts.
This is the main reason that we can No-Chill even lagers, without worrying about DMS build up in the slow cooling wort. If we use American Malts for out brews, then this does become a concern. So, hence you need a 90 minute boil to drive off alot of the DMS precursor.
Hope I answered your question atleast half intelligently.
Cheers
The Pol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,390
- Reaction score
- 117
I completely admire The Pol, for putting the No Chill method "Through the ringer". I live in Melbourne, where we are experiencing the worst drought in about 110 years. Our water levels are at 27.5% capacity. For instance, our biggest reservoir has a capacity of 1,068,000 litres. It is sitting at 187,462.
So yeah, we do not have the luxury of putting 50-60 litres of water down the drain. Hence the no chill method came about. It makes perfect sense here. Over in the U.S, I cannot see the enviromental advantage, but I do have to admit, that it does save time on your brew day. You just drain from the kettle, let sit and clean up. Put outside and let 'chill' next morning, pour and pitch
Back to the original topic:
90 minute versus 60 minute boil.
Once again, the difference in countries is shown in my answer. Generally when you boil, it is so that you get hop isomerization. I,E getting the oils in the hops to leech out, and mix with the wort etc etc. This happens at a lower then boiling temperature. The reason for a "vigorous" boil, is to drive of the DMS. This is found in all malts, but especially in American and European Pilsner malts. However, in Australian Malts, there are much less pre-cursors for DMS, particularly in Pilsner malts.
This is the main reason that we can No-Chill even lagers, without worrying about DMS build up in the slow cooling wort. If we use American Malts for out brews, then this does become a concern. So, hence you need a 90 minute boil to drive off alot of the DMS precursor.
Hope I answered your question atleast half intelligently.
Cheers
Thanks for the input! I just sent my article to Brewer's Friend, home brewing resources covering no chill.
I have done 90 minute boils for some time, but now with no chill I am pushing it to 100 minutes. Like most processes, it depends on the brewer and his/her needs. I DO appreciate the increased utilization with the 90 minute boils, and since I am not paying for gas, I am actually saving money. The cost of running a 90-100 minute boil can be a concern admittedly.
steelerguy
Well-Known Member
Although I live in NY now, I came from Arizona and can tell you that there are plenty of areas in the Southwestern US that can't afford to just through water down the drain...that's not to say they don't do it though. This is not to to trivialize the drought you are having, I have done a good deal of reading about it and it truely is horrible, especially for the farmers in the region.
As far as the OP in concerned. I think the only time it is really worth while to do 90 minute boils is when you are using pilsner malt, especially with a lager. I have used US 2-row and never had problems with a 60 minute boil and DMS. I have had problems with 90 or 120 minute boils darkening my beer more than I would like though.
So I don't think there is any real reason to take your boil past 60 minutes unless you are trying to accomplish a specific goal.
jkarp
Well-Known Member
OT, but of course it is. There's zero heat loss to the flue. Now is it cheaper (which is what I think you meant); well, that all depends on your energy costs. Take your propane price per gallon and multiply by 0.037 to get the equiv. price per kilowatt hour of electricity. Now divide by your water heater's rated efficiency to get your actual comparison cost.
When propane was $3/gal two winters ago, $0.096/kWh to heat water was looking pretty damn good. Last winter I paid $1.40/gal so propane was obviously cheaper. The joys of rural living...
