How long do YOU boil ?

Past few years I've been boiling an hour. Years ago I used to do ninety minutes.

Haven't noticed anything really different in flavor, clarity, or color (for the most part). I expect you might get some more protein coagulation boiling longer but I'm not having clarity problems.

So, how long do you boil?

All the Best,
D. White

 

For lighter beers, 30 minutes after the boil begins. I can't bring the wort to boil instantly so it spends a fair amount of time above 80C before it starts to boil. I figure once I am above 90C it doesn't matter too much, since DMS is pretty volatile. I add my hops once it's close to boil so they end up spending like 45 minutes in the wort.

I don't babysit the wort though, as long as I have enough head space in the kettle I will occasionally forget about it for an additional 30 or 45 minutes if I am watching a movie or something. I don't find it to make a real difference. If I have to go out, I will just stop the boil as soon as it's been 30 minutes. My process isn't very rigid, I approach it as an art rather than a science.

Obligatory exbeeriment http://brulosophy.com/2015/03/11/the-impact-of-boil-length-ale-exbeeriment-results/

 

about an hour for most beers - 90 for a couple,

 

Almost always 60 minutes, 90 for my big ass stout for efficiency sake...

Cheers!

 

Usually and hour, but I've done no boil, 15 and 30 minutes boil.

 

Every beer gets 90 minutes, no matter the style, for several reasons (1) I like the time it gives me to double check hop calculations based on pre-boil OG, make notes, clean the mash tun, clean and sanitize the fermenter etc. In other words, I don't like to rush the brew session. (2) Now that I'm used to 90 minute boils, pre-boil to post-boil volumes are very consistent between brews which helps a lot with hitting the parameters the brewing software predicts (OG/IBU/SRM etc). (3) usually the beers turn out really good, with no complaints at all about DMS or other off flavours and aromas that may be present after an insufficient boil.

My boil intensity is not all that high, probably in line with what most homebrewers do. I'll start with 31L and end up with about 25L after 90 minutes, or about 1 gallon / hour. Boil off rate is something I'm interested in playing with this year, I may still be boiling too hard possibly affecting foam stability and shelf stability according to some of the literature out there. But I don't see myself reducing the length of the boil any time soon.

- AC

 

Usually 60 min out of habit, but have definitely cut that in half with no discernable effects.

 

1 hour boiler here

 

30-45 minutes. When my 2 year old was born I started working on ways to reduce brew day times. I also do no chill.

 

A more interesting question would be:

What happens during the boil and how long do each of those processes take?

 

I do the standard 60 minute boil for most beers. The one exception so far is when I do a really big stout. The last one was OG of 1.128. For those, with the massive grain bill, I use extra sparge water to maintain efficiency. Then I boil longer to get to my desired OG. The last one was a 3 hour boil. I sat in my garage and streamed a movie on Netflix during a chunk of it.

 

Is this an all grain or a malt extract boil question?

 

Not much into experimenting to find out what happens when. If Beersmith tells me 60 minutes I do 60 minutes. Sometimes it says 90 minutes. I don't take the time or trouble to rework hop additions for different timings.

 

All grain.

All the Best,
D. White

 

I do 90 for Pilsners and 60 for all others

 

60, 90 and 120+ ( for high gravity beers ).

I like Pilsner malt and similar very light malt, which is why I boil for 90 minutes, just to be sure. Although, 45-60 minutes would be enough.

 

Rarely 90 min boil. Large majority are 60 min boils.

I have recently started doing 30 min boils for a shorter brew day and have had no ill effects

 

30 minutes.

 

Mine are the same. Belief is drive off DMS in the Pils malt.

 

Last 80 batches:


[Edit: That 0 is an Apfelwein]

 

I go with what Beer Smith tells me for my mash and boil times. Mostly 60 minutes for boil unless I need to go longer to reduce the liquid volume.

 

90 minutes for pilsner malt. 60 minutes for pale ale malt.

 

For me it's mainly been 60 minute boils, although I bumped it up to 75 minutes when I used mainly Pilsner for a batch. I do plan on switching to 45 minute boils at some point and seeing if I notice any impact. It would save 15 minutes of boiling (obviously), and would also slightly speed up ramp times since I'd use 0.2 fewer gallons to account for less boil-off (my rate is 0.8 gallons/hour).

 

60 minutes plus whatever time it takes to boil down to my "start boil" volume, which is usually 6.5 gallons on the sight tube. Starting there for me with my typical boil off rate and the thermal expansion/contraction factor and expected volume of kettle trub will usually net me 5.25 ish gal of clean/filtered wort to the fermenter and that 0.25 is about the entire yeast cake plus a wee bit of beer that I can harvest for the next pitch.

Sometimes I've had 2 hours to boil down to my starting volume. Sometimes I'm right on it from the start.

But basically I start my boil clock at 60 min once I hit my target start volume.

 

I switched to 45 minutes for several years when I was still doing all-grain with no discernable difference.

 

See, this is the crux of it. I think (though I don't presume to talk for) RPh is answering the question with a Socratic response (another question). At least I infer from his post that he is implying that "it takes as long as it takes." Or at least it should. But we humans are creatures of habit and too often succumb to inertia at the expense of reason. I'm as guilty as the next brewer. Yep, when I first started out I obeyed the mantra, "60 minutes for ales, 90 minutes for lagers." Got to drive off that DMS, don't ya' know. Out of laziness or complacency I finally gravitated to 75 minutes for both, figuring my boil-off volumes would be the same while not altering my lagers and maybe improving my ales.

But increasingly after reading and studying different fact-based observations and conclusions (not Brulosophy 'exbeeraments') I'm gradually coming to the belief that boil time is only a factor in hop utilization, and a "vigorous boil" for whatever length of time is actually a very bad thing for the flavor and stability of beers. By increasing my bittering hops by about 20% I can shorten my boil time to about 30 minutes (from 75). At least that's a rough number I get when I plug those numbers into BeerSmith using some past recipes. If true in the 'real world' of brewing, it begs the question RPh asked:

"What happens during the boil and how long do each of those processes take?"

Once you answer that question you'll have answered your original question. Then add to that, "And not one minute more."

Brooo Brother

 

There's a bit more to the boil than simply hop utilization (and sanitation, of course).
Desirable things like protein coagulation, efficiency improvement, and for some brewers/styles melanoidin conversions, at least...

Cheers!

 

My last couple of brews have been exercises in shorter mash and boil times. I’m currently drinking a Blonde Ale which I mashed and boiled for 30 minutes each. I’ve brewed this recipe several times before and I haven’t been able to find any significant differences in this beer compared to previous versions. I hit the same numbers with the shorter times; the only adjustment I made was to increase the bittering hop addition by about 25%.

I have a Pale Ale fermenting now that I mashed and boiled for 45 minutes each. It’s a little more complex beer than the Blonde so I thought a little more time might help. Again, the numbers, to this point, have been the same as previous brews with “conventional” mash and boil times.

It may be that 60-90 minutes mash and boil times could go the way of secondary fermentations. People tend to follow long accepted dogma right up until someone points out that that particular emperor isn’t very well dressed.

 

How do you suppose that happened?

Cheers! (yes, that's a leading question. be careful )

 

My boil times are determined strictly by my hopping times.
I usually have a 60 min hop addition but I've done a couple with only flame-out and whirlpool hops that just got to boil and then turned off to add hops.
I've even done one where I only got up to 170F before I shut off the heat. That one never really cleared up but still tasted great...

 

I sparged for a pre boil volume which accounted for a shorter time at the same boil off rate. I assumed I’d extract the same amount of sugars in the shorter mash. My first runnings gravity was the same as the previous batch of this recipe with a 60 min mash.

 

Ok, that's where there's an intrinsic issue.

If you lower your pre-boil volume by the shorter boil-off difference, unless you changed how much grain you used - or changed the way you lautered the mash - or changed the volume into the fermentor - the end result has to have a lower OG.

There's no easy way around the math

Cheers!

 

All true, but increasingly some sectors of the brewing community are concluding that most, if not all, of those factors are accomplished in a 30 minute simmering boil. Sterilization occurs after 15-20 minutes at 245-250 F. Unfortunately boiling wort never exceeds 212F even at the most vigorous of boils (sea level). Of course Pasteurization happens at much lower temperatures.

Proteins coagulate by and large when the boil, vigorous or not, is initially reached or shortly thereafter (hot break). Greater efficiency can be achieved by step mashing (more Alpha and Beta amylases available for starch conversion), or just add an extra half pound of base grain. The Maillard effect darkens the wort as the boil time increases. The stylistic factors you mention can be achieved by adding a few ounces of melanoidin to the grist.

On the other hand, precursors to DMS and diacytl may actually increase during an extended vigorous boil. Combined, these observations suggest that a 30 minute boil might be much better than 60-90 minute boils.

I'm not totally convinced yet, but I'm keeping an open mind. I don't have sufficient equipment or background to 'peer review' these observations and opinions. However I am willing to do some test batches with simple recipes I've previously brewed. If anecdotally I can't discern a difference between the two I may have to rethink my length of boil timing.

Brooo Brother

 

fwiw, "sanitation" is the right word.
The one you're thinking I wrote is "sterilization"...

Cheers!

 

I boil to get the final volume I need in my fermenter (5.2gal). If I start with 7+ gal I need to boil about +/-80-90+min min. If I start with 6.5 gal then about 60min. If I get less than 6.5 gal then I adjust and boil 40-50min. I only add the hops at 60min or less. But I always boil at least 40min. Lately after one year brewing my volumes are more accurate so I do a lot better.

 

I'm a one hour boiler. For other applications, I try to aim for at least four minutes...

 

Yeah, your right. I'm sick at home today. I'll blame the drugs. I conflated sanitization and sterilization. I humbly stand corrected, sir.

Brooo Bro

 

Goodness, no apology required. Not that big a deal

Cheers!

 

I went back through my brewing notes. I brewed the Blonde Ale 3 times last year and I did end up with the same 1st runnings, OG, and FG each time. The pre boil SG and the finished volumes were slightly different each time, so the efficiencies varied a bit between batches. I wanted to try the shorter mash and boil times to find out how the finished product would vary from using the “traditional” times. For all intents and purposes, I ended up with the same beer.

Will this process prove to be repeatable and, more importantly, apply to other beer styles?

Hold my beer...

 

All good!