Boil Length?

I've done some poking around, and couldn't find a direct answer to this one.

Is there any merit to doing a longer (or shorter) boil when compared to a standard 60 minute? For example, if X amount of hops gives you 100 IBU with a sixty minute boil, and X amount of hops gives you 100 IBU with a ninety minute boil, is there any advantage to going the longer boil, besides maybe saving a handful of hops?

I've heard that longer boils caramelize more fully and lend different flavors, etc, but haven't really heard for sure one way or the other.

Drives off DMS, better boil off (higher OG), slightly better hop utilization... nothing HUGE, but certainly some benefits. I always 90 minute boil now... and in about 4 weeks I will be able to do it without burning any propane!

Is the added time worth it compared to the higher rate of (water) boil-off?

Extra time is relative... that is time spent cleaning up for me. The benefits are limited... if I were boiling with propane, I may not do it. ($$$) But with electric I say why not.

Sounds good. I do split stove top, so I don't want too much water to boil off duing that time (my primary concern). Otherwise, 90 minutes is just fine.

You really only need a 90 min boil with a beer that has a high percentage of Pilsner malt. That is to drive off the DMS. A longer boil will also help develop melanoidins (not caramelize). There are better ways to get melanoidins than through the boil however. If you boil too long, you will have boil off problems. You really dont want to boil off more than 15%. Thats pushing it. 10-13% is better. Just remember, longer is not always better!

I like a 60 minute boil for ales. George Fix, in Analysis of Brewing Techniques, demonstrates that it is impossible to have perceptible DMS in an ale made with ale malt regardless of how you cool the wort. Works for me.

Even with pilsner malt and an ale fermentation, it isn't likely.

There are lots of potential sources of sulfur compounds in finished beer, homebrewers seem to want to blame them all on SMM in malt.

I suspect that most homebrewers are doing approximate 90 minute boils whether they realize it or not. I add my bittering hops after the hot break and the risk of boilover has passed. This takes an average of 20 minutes once the preboil wort is collected. If you compensate for this evaporation loss and adjust hop amounts accordingly, you will still get your target volume into the fermentation vessel.

With regards to DMS, rapid cooling to below 140 as quickly as possible after flameout has a greater cumulative effect on DMS than an extended boil. My proof to this hypothesis is my Berliner Weisse recipe which is 65% Pilsner malt with a 15 minute (not a typo!) boil. Conventional wisdom would suggest that this beer would be full of cooked vegetable aroma with such a brief boil time, but there is nary an iota of DMS in this beer at transfer to secondary for further souring several weeks ago.

The Pol said:

Extra time is relative... that is time spent cleaning up for me. The benefits are limited... if I were boiling with propane, I may not do it. ($$$) But with electric I say why not.

Click to expand...

I use propane to boil my 5 gallon batches. I boiled 7 batches for 60 minutes on one tank of propane. That is about $2 per 60 minutes. Electricity isn't free either, you may spend like 50 cents for a 60 minute boil (just guessing). So, in the end you are looking at a per bottle price increase of about 2 cents doing a 90 minute boil versus a 60 minute boil. I like the flexibility that a propane burner gives me, but then again I am always worried about running out of propane mid batch -- electric would solve that problem (since I don't plan on moving to california... haha).

Well, I'm doing up a 60 minute batch fairly soon here within the next few days (first one with all the new equipment), so I'll see my rate of boil-off with that. I'd rather top off just a little bit if needed as opposed to having a little too much -- so, again we'll see.

If 60 minutes does it for me (which I think it will), then that will be my magic number, but I'll go as high as 90 next time around if my rate of boil-off (this time around) warrants it.

dehn0045 said:

I use propane to boil my 5 gallon batches. I boiled 7 batches for 60 minutes on one tank of propane. That is about $2 per 60 minutes. Electricity isn't free either, you may spend like 50 cents for a 60 minute boil (just guessing). So, in the end you are looking at a per bottle price increase of about 2 cents doing a 90 minute boil versus a 60 minute boil. I like the flexibility that a propane burner gives me, but then again I am always worried about running out of propane mid batch -- electric would solve that problem (since I don't plan on moving to california... haha).

Click to expand...

And yet something else that we were trying to find the answer too. How much propane does one batch use? So the question that I have for you is, what size burner do you have?

flyangler18 said:

With regards to DMS, rapid cooling to below 140 as quickly as possible after flameout has a greater cumulative effect on DMS than an extended boil.

Click to expand...

And peforming an ale fermentation rather than a lager fermentation has a greater cumulative effect than either.

I have been able to get 4 boils out of a single 20lb propane tank... that comes to about $5 in propane per boil. That is much more expensive than electricity. Not to mention I can brew INSIDE with electricity, never have to worry about running out of gas, or go get refills on brew day when I realize that my spare tank is already empty.... etc.

Not many people 90 minute boil from what I gather... I started doing it on every brew this year. I am able to run-off more, and get down to my target volume, it also gives slightly better hop utilization. I can still complete an AG brew in about 4.5 hours this way, so I figure why not? Is there a difference in the flavor of the beer... eh, I dunno, I just like big numbers.

So is the only benefit to 90 min vs 60 minute boil time driving off DMS and possibly better hop utilization? Is there any other added benefit?

Korben said:

So is the only benefit to 90 min vs 60 minute boil time driving off DMS and possibly better hop utilization? Is there any other added benefit?

Click to expand...

Well you are going to create byproducts of various chemical reactions due to increased thermal loading. That may be a good thing or a bad thing. It's a good thing in scottish ales, for example.

I'm not convinced there are any DMS benefits since increased boiling will cause more SMM to be converted to DMS and that is the extra DMS that is boiling off. It is a zero sum game. If you are using ale malt and an ale fermentation you simply will not get any DMS in the beer as a result of SMM in the malt.

Edcculus said:

If you boil too long, you will have boil off problems. You really dont want to boil off more than 15%. Thats pushing it. 10-13% is better. Just remember, longer is not always better!

Click to expand...

what boil off problems are you talking about? why don't you want to boil off more than 15%? that's really interesting, i've never heard this before. do you have any references. i boil off 25-28% of my starting volume (8.75gal down to 6.5ish gal) in 90min for most of my batches and i've not noticed problems. maybe i don't know what to look for.