60 min vs. 90 min

[homebrewnewbie]

For most of my boils I go with 90 minutes, per Stephen Snyder's advice in "The Brewmaster's Bible".

He states that 90 minutes is ideal for all-grain brewing. But a lot of good recipes in other books are 60 boils for all-grain as well.

What is the effect on the wort, besides the obvious effect on hops, of a 90 minute boil versus a 60 minute?

 

[TheZymurgist]

You'll get slightly more caramelization, creating a darker color, and you will usually see better efficiency with 90 minute boils. Personally, I only do 90 minute boils if I'm doing a high gravity beer, to help with efficiency. Other than that, there aren't many benefits. Since we're working on such a small scale, I'd rather save the time and propane and just add a little extra grain to compensate for the efficiency differences at 60 minutes vs. 90.

 

[JR_Brewer]

If you're doing all grain brewing, the production of Dimethyl Sulfide (DMS) is a concern especially when you use extremely light malts (e.g, Pilsener malt). This is shows up as a flaw in the beer that smells a little like canned corn.

DMS is driven off in a boil, and 60 minutes is often sufficient for most malts, but it's better to go to 90 when dealing with the light ones.

If you're doing extract, the DMS has already been driven off during the production of the extract, so no worries there. When I first started brewing, I was unnecessarily boiling pilsener LME for 90 minutes.

This is one answer, I'm sure other brewers have other reasons.

Happy Brewing!

 

[Warthaug]

Like theZymergist, I base my boil length on gravity - big beers get a longer boil, to concentrate the wort more; average beers get a 60min boil. The advantages/disadvantages, in my opinion:

60 min:
Advantages: Shorter brew day, lower gas/electricity costs, less darkening of the wort
Disadvantages: Poorer hop utilization, lower overall process efficiency due to less wort concentration

Note: In my experience, the "cost" of the extra hops & malt needed to overcome the lower efficiency is less than a buck a batch

90 min:
Advantages: More melanoidins (red colours) - good for some styles; better overall efficiency, better hop utilization, more drinking time
Disadvantages: Longer brew day, higher heating costs, more drinking time (double-edged sword, that one)

Bryan

 

[Calichusetts]

Better coagulation, which mean a better cold break and clearer beer. Less oxygen, and lower ph.

All my boils are 70-120 minutes...I just like them better I guess

 

[kh54s10]

As far as I know boiling has no effect on efficiency. When you boil longer it only concentrates the wort by boiling off more water. It will increase the gravity of the wort. This is not really efficiency.

I boil per the ingredients and the recipe. If you have a recipe for 60 minutes and boil for 90 minutes you will get a darker, higher gravity beer with lower volume unless you account for the longer time by starting the boil with more wort. Pilsner malts need 90 minutes to drive off DMS.

All of this applies more to all grain than it does to extract recipes.

 

[homebrewnewbie]

Ok, the reason I'm asking is because I am considering a 120 min boil for a belgian tripel i'm going to attempt. I just wanted some insight on why such a long boil is recommended. Thanks for the posts.

Bottling: "Second Chance" American Pale Ale

Primary: "damn, girl" Big Sweet Chocolate Stout

Drinking: Brooklyn Dark Chocolate Stout clone, less sour than the real ale.

 

[Warthaug]

As far as I know boiling has no effect on efficiency. When you boil longer it only concentrates the wort by boiling off more water. It will increase the gravity of the wort. This is not really efficiency.

But, to achieve that end you usually collect more sparge water, thus extracting more sugars fro the mash, thus deriving more gravity points per weight of grain. And that is increased efficiency.

Better coagulation, which mean a better cold break and clearer beer. Less oxygen, and lower ph.

As with hop utilization, most of these factors have ever decreasing returns as boil times are increased, and very few of these will be meaningfully improved by boil times >60 minutes. Oxygen solubility is a direct function of temperature, with most of it being expelled from the wort by the time you reach a boil. Likewise, calcium phosphate precipitation (which drives wort acidification) is mostly completed within 30-40min of the boil.


Bryan

 

[JimRausch]

Ok, the reason I'm asking is because I am considering a 120 min boil for a belgian tripel i'm going to attempt. I just wanted some insight on why such a long boil is recommended. Thanks for the posts.

Bottling: "Second Chance" American Pale Ale

Primary: "damn, girl" Big Sweet Chocolate Stout

Drinking: Brooklyn Dark Chocolate Stout clone, less sour than the real ale.

Alot of the Belgian Tripel recipes I've seen have alot of Pilsner malt. In a post I saw somewhere a couple days ago, someone had figures that showed something like 60% of DMS was driven off by 60 minutes, 80% by 75 min., and 90% by 90 min. (boy I guess with all the someones, somethings, and somewheres, that was wicked vague. Hopefully the original poster will chime in). But anyways, I took out of that post to always boil worts with Pilsner malts for at least 75 min, and preferably 90.