90min vs. 60min boil

Anyone know the reason for doing a 90min boil over a 60min boil even if the first hop addition is at the 60min mark. I'm planing on doing this SNCA clone recipe by dude

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f12/recipe-tomorrow-question-4788/#post43073

and he has it done for 90min. Just wondering. Also I plan on doing a partial mash version of this recipe if that changes anything.

When you do AG brewing sometimes you need the longer boil to get your wort down to the right size and OG since you start with a larger volume and lower gravity. The extra 30 min allows for some evaporation. You will be fine with a 60 min boil

For beers with pilsner or other undermodified malts, a 90 min. boil is said to be necessary to drive off DMS precursors. Some people do a 90 min. boil on all their beers because it gives them a cleaner taste. Also, the evaporation reason that someone mentioned.

I am skeptical of both of the above reasons to do a 90 min. boil. Basic Brewing Radio or Video interviewed someone a while ago who said that after some study, they found that a 45 min. boil is all that is necessary given a good rolling boil.

I boil 90mins with large grain bills, because I run off more wort. More grain, more sugars, more runoff, requires a longer boil to get the right volume and good eff.

If I do a 45 minute boil, or a 60 minute boil, I will either have a 6 gallon batch because of all my runoff, OR I will have to run off less and leave more sugars in the mash. I dont want to do either, so I do 90 min boils.

____________________________________
Primary- Orange Cascade APA
Secondary- AIR
Keg1- Centennial Blonde
Keg2- Oktoberfest
Keg3- Christmas Spice
Keg4- Fire In The Hole
Keg5- AIR
Keg6- AIR
Keg7- AIR
Keg8- AIR

You get better hop utilization by allowing the hot break to form before adding hops to the boil. I'm not advocating doing a 90 min boil all the time, but if you do a 90 min boil and add the first hops at 60 min, you'll get better hop utilization. The reason is that hot-break proteins coagulate with hop α-acids and drop them out of solution.

mew said:

For beers with pilsner or other undermodified malts, a 90 min. boil is said to be necessary to drive off DMS precursors. Some people do a 90 min. boil on all their beers because it gives them a cleaner taste. Also, the evaporation reason that someone mentioned.

I am skeptical of both of the above reasons to do a 90 min. boil. Basic Brewing Radio or Video interviewed someone a while ago who said that after some study, they found that a 45 min. boil is all that is necessary given a good rolling boil.

Click to expand...

FYI, it's not undermodified malts, its low kilned malts that have the precursor to DMS (SMM) in them. The higher kilning given to most other malts drives off the majority of the SMM. If you have ever brewed a beer with a lot of pils malt, you know why you want to boil it all off, it smells like corn tortillas. It is present in all base malts, but only in high quantities in low kilned malts. I don't have any scientific instruments to detect SMM, so I boil for 90min to make sure it has all dissapated.

I boil all my beers for 90 minutes to get better effeciency and to get more maillard reactions in the beer, giving it a maltier flavor. If I am using pilsner malts, it helps out there as well. I have never heard the "cleaner" flavor argument before.

+1 BarleyWater. My beers have improved significantly since moving to 90 minute boils.

"I boiled 15 minutes longer to make sure I got the right color"
-Dude

The reason for the longer boils is for water volume to evaporate, not hop bitterness extraction...

- Boil Off

- To breakdown DMS pre-cusors

- To form and skim hot break prior to 60 minute bittering additions

- To "slightly" increase hop utilization (See Fix, Principles or any brewing software)

- To facilitate melanoidin creation

- To better improve hot break coagulation

- To better accomodate consequtive batching.

- To allow more time for drinkin' while brewin'.

Way to break it down, GMB!

All of jamil's recipes that I've seen have 90 min boils. That's gotta say something. On the other hand, 70% efficiency. Not sure why that is.

GilaMinumBeer said:

- Boil Off

- To breakdown DMS pre-cusors

- To form and skim hot break prior to 60 minute bittering additions

- To "slightly" increase hop utilization (See Fix, Principles or any brewing software)

- To facilitate melanoidin creation

- To better improve hot break coagulation

- To better accomodate consequtive batching.

- To allow more time for drinkin' while brewin'.

Click to expand...

+1 I liked how it is all summed up right heere

Coastarine said:

All of jamil's recipes that I've seen have 90 min boils. That's gotta say something. On the other hand, 70% efficiency. Not sure why that is.

Click to expand...

Because that's the grind he prefers on his grain. I heard him talking about it on a Jamil Show episode, he prefers a courser grind to speed up his lautering, and just throws in an extra pound of base malt to compensate for it.

I wait until after hot break to add my bittering hops, I boil like I'm angry at my wort, I use Whirlfloc religiously, and I use an immersion chiller which gets me below the DMS production threshold of 140*F in about 5 minutes. Hence I don't see much benefit to a boil longer than 60 minutes (which is really about 75 minutes when you count the time added for the hot break to calm down).

YMMV based on your equipment.

Jamil Z. has similar equipment and methods to me, and he says on the Brewing Network he uses 45 or 60 minute boils for about everything anymore including Pils malt. Most commercial breweries use a 60 minute boil. He puts 90 minutes in his recipes when he publishes them to make up for a less than perfect process if others attempt to brew his recipes.

A vigorous boil and rapid chilling are the key to pulling off a shorter boil time while still producing a clear, DMS free wort. If you are using a non-whirlpool counterflow chiller setup or (gasp) water bath to cool your wort, or you are boiling on a stove top where you can't get a boil that is vigorous enough to splash over the sides of the pot, a 90 minute boil is probably going to improve your beer.

Yeah I boil off +2 gallons in 60 minutes so 90 minutes is impractical and superfluous for me. YMMV....I boil crazy hard and my pot is huge at 17" wide.

I boil pretty hard, but my keggle only loses 1.4 gallons/hour

TeleTwanger said:

Yeah I boil off +2 gallons in 60 minutes so 90 minutes is impractical and superfluous for me. YMMV....I boil crazy hard and my pot is huge at 17" wide.

Click to expand...

Yup, I'm losing about 2 gallons during a 60-min boil in my 10 gal MegaPot so I don't think I want to go 90!!

Keggle, lose about 3 gallons in 45 minutes to finish with 10. Meh.

FWH with a 1/2 ounce to control boil overs, and steam the paint off the ceilings.

I'm on the fence on this one. I've done 90 minute boils on my last 2 batches and have yet to sample the brews. If you have a consistent and effiecient system I think 75 min is a nice compromise and achieves and addresses both ideas to some degree. Does that make sense?

Huh, wish I would have read this before my last two brews. Before my hiatus I boiled angry and always fell below my desired 5.5 gallons due to boil off (approx. 2-2.5 gallons/hr), tough I know I can top it off post boil to compensate, I still don't like to do it.
This weekend both my batches were boiled for 60 at a relatively weak boil, thankfully I was brewing with mostly malts low in DMS precursors. I'm sure they'll be delicious, but probably won't live up to their full potential. I'll have to try to run off a little more and try a 90 minute boil for my upcoming ESB...

Check out this article, don't know if it helps:

hops and boiling

I am interested in getting into 90 minute boils as well but want to make sure it makes sense

Saccharomyces said:

I wait until after hot break to add my bittering hops, I boil like I'm angry at my wort, I use Whirlfloc religiously, and

I use an immersion chiller which gets me below the DMS production threshold of 140*F in about 5 minutes. Hence I don't see much benefit to a boil longer than 60 minutes (which is really about 75 minutes when you count the time added for the hot break to calm down).

Click to expand...

YMMV based on your equipment.

Jamil Z. has similar equipment and methods to me, and he says on the Brewing Network he uses 45 or 60 minute boils for about everything anymore including Pils malt. Most commercial breweries use a 60 minute boil. He puts 90 minutes in his recipes when he publishes them to make up for a less than perfect process if others attempt to brew his recipes.

A vigorous boil and rapid chilling are the key to pulling off a shorter boil time while still producing a clear, DMS free wort. If you are using a non-whirlpool counterflow chiller setup or (gasp) water bath to cool your wort, or you are boiling on a stove top where you can't get a boil that is vigorous enough to splash over the sides of the pot, a 90 minute boil is probably going to improve your beer.

Click to expand...

So really, 20 minutes to get below 140 F .

We always boil 90 minutes and add hops at 60. Our kettle is set up for that and we always hit our numbers on gravity so why change anything!

Well, I take that back, we don't boil at all when we make Zoigl! We bring it to a boil and then chill. They say you can't do that but tell that to the German's in Windischeschenbach!

Some of these boil-off rates are off the hook - 2 gallons per hour in a 10g kettle?
3 gallons in 45 minutes in a keggle? (that one's gotta have a leak )

fwiw, I lose just under a gallon in an hour on my 10g BK and almost 2 gallons in my 20g BK.
I don't boil "hard" with foam flying around, just a solid roll.

Nearly all of my recipes call for a 60 minute boil, but recipes I've "borrowed" frequently call for 90 minutes (eg: the Cream Of Three Crops I did this Saturday).
That one was kinda strange as the barley is basic pale 2-row - no pils in sight - and the rest is adjunct...

Cheers!


Cheers!

Terryeh said:

So really, 20 minutes to get below 140 F .

Click to expand...

First ever post is a snarky reply to an 8 year old post...nice!