Any benefits to boiling more than 60 minutes?

[Billie]

I've always done a 60 minute boil but I've been watching You-Tube vids. and the posters sometimes do 75 or 90 minute boils. Is there any benefits to doing that other than reducing volume to fit the fermenting vessel better?

 

[Big Monk]

I've always done a 60 minute boil but I've been watching You-Tube vids. and the posters sometimes do 75 or 90 minute boils. Is there any benefits to doing that other than reducing volume to fit the fermenting vessel better?

My opinion is a resounding no.

Recipe design, volume and gravity planning, etc. are much better avenues for hitting numbers and flavors as opposed to boiling the bejesus out of the wort.

 

[Iseneye]

IMHO no as well. You have most of the available IBU from the hops at 60 minutes. Old school homebrew thoughts were that you needed to boil pilsner malt longer to avoid DMS.

 

[NineMileStyle]

I have a few recipes that I always boil for 90 mins, I also boil many for 60.

There is a big difference. Boiling for 90 minutes gets rid of a lot more water leaving you a much maltier brew with a heavier mouth-feel.

I go 90 mins with my Scottish ales, Wee Heavys and the like.

I recommend you try it out on a beer you want to have a more malty/caramelly character. I bet you'll really like it.

 

[NineMileStyle]

IMHO no as well. You have most of the available IBU from the hops at 60 minutes. Old school homebrew thoughts were that you needed to boil pilsner malt longer to avoid DMS.

Well...youre right, but most people who are doing a 90 minute boil will wait to add hops until the last 60 minutes.

 

[Jayjay1976]

For brewing higher gravity ales and such, 90+ minute boils are commonplace.

 

[Big Monk]

For brewing higher gravity ales and such, 90+ minute boils are commonplace.

A bigger mashtun is the answer to that.

Even Denny Conn has an extra mashtun for brewing bigger beers.

Except for where the style may actually require it (I’m thinking Scottish) overboiling May do more harm than good.

 

[rabbitburger]

After about 60 minutes, you will theoretically eliminate about 65% of DMS. After 90 minutes, that number is closer to 80%. Lighter malts and 6 row malts will generate more DMS, hence a 90 minute boil is used when working with these malts.

 

[Gnomebrewer]

I don't boil pils malt for 90 mins (typically 45 or 60 minutes) and have never had DMS. I think DMS is more of an issue for commercial brewers who have a lower percentage boiloff than homebrewers. Most homebrewers are boiling off more than 10% in a 60 minute boil, which should easily get rid of all noticeable DMS.

 

[Gnomebrewer]

After about 60 minutes, you will theoretically eliminate about 65% of DMS. After 90 minutes, that number is closer to 80%.

Do you have a source for that?

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Looks about right - halflife of the DMS precursor is 37 minutes at boiling point, although the rate of boiloff depends on everything from the vigour of the boil to whether you use antifoam. See http://scottjanish.com/how-to-prevent-dms-in-beer/

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Looks about right - halflife of the DMS precursor is 37 minutes at boiling point, although the rate of boiloff depends on everything from the vigour of the boil to whether you use antifoam. See http://scottjanish.com/how-to-prevent-dms-in-beer/

Hence why I'd like to read the source article. Numbers are often thrown around without consideration of the constraints of the original study - often the conclusions drawn by others are outside the scope of the original.

 

[RM-MN]

After about 60 minutes, you will theoretically eliminate about 65% of DMS. After 90 minutes, that number is closer to 80%. Lighter malts and 6 row malts will generate more DMS, hence a 90 minute boil is used when working with these malts.

Interesting statistic but explain why those of us who only boil for 30 minutes don't end up with butter bombs.

 

[Big Monk]

Yeah but, you've got a hidden agenda, doncha? Whip it out already, that lodo drum you're always beating.

Traditionally, long boils are fine. Don't be driven away from the idea, try it for yourself.

I have, many times! Remember, I brew mainly Trappist inspired ales, so prior to Said Methods, I subscribed to all the usual trappings of trying to replicate them.

In this case though, it’s simply good practice not to overboil the wort and for my beers, I simply plan better out front to hit numbers, flavor profiles, etc.

I appreciate the frustration but in this case I come “hat in hand”. Certain things that used to be standard practice are now becoming outdated. Boils longer than 60 minutes, save for specific styles, are one of them.

At the very least you save energy and time.

 

[Vale71]

Interesting statistic but explain why those of us who only boil for 30 minutes don't end up with butter bombs.

Perhaps because you're confusing diacetyl with DMS?

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Interesting statistic but explain why those of us who only boil for 30 minutes don't end up with butter bombs.

I agree, except that DMS would be a cooked corn bomb, diacetyl would be a butter bomb.

The article that Northern Brewer linked to cites the 37 minute half life of SMM (the precursor to DMS), but also says that the vigour of the boil affects DMS removal, with almost none found in a 60 minute boil at high wattages. This would support what homebrewers are frequently saying - that DMS at the homebrew scale is not a real issue. No need for long boils for DMS removal.

 

[NineMileStyle]

Well....now that DMS is off the table....

A 90 minute boil remains a great way to increase the caramelized malty character in the right brew. I feel that brewing an old recipe with "new techniques" is like wearing a belt with suspenders.....its weird.

I've never understood the idea of a brewing technique becoming "outdated". If brewers only use the latest methods known, we will lose some great pieces of brewing history. Yes, its fun to play around with new-fangled ideas, but I like to think its a good idea to maintain the old with the new for a more well-rounded knowledge base and brewing experience.

just my 2¢.

 

[kh54s10]

I would say that a longer boil is not good, unless you are doing it for a purpose. If you boil a big beer longer you will increase the ABV and the flavor of the beer. If you don't want the flavor change, the better route is to modify the recipe to get the ABV that you desire.

 

[Jayjay1976]

Trying to brew an all-grain bourbon county stout clone with an OG of 1.127 is pretty difficult due to the low extraction efficiency caused by such a thick mash. Additional mash tuns aren't the answer, collecting more pre-boil wort of a lower gravity and concentrating it with an extended boil is the answer.

 

[SEndorf]

So.. many of you are saying a 90 min. boil on pils is outdated and unsubstantiated?

 

[lump42]

It would depend on your end goal. If you are trying to shorten the brew day, add more grain to hit higher gravities. If you are chasing efficiencies, go for long boils. If it gives the perceived character you're looking for, that is all the reason you need.

I've done 10 min boils to 90 min boils, just depends on what my goal for the brew is.

 

[kh54s10]

So.. many of you are saying a 90 min. boil on pils is outdated and unsubstantiated?

From what I understand the need for 90 minute boils for pils has become less needed as maltsters have improved the modification of the malt.

 

[lump42]

Trying to brew an all-grain bourbon county stout clone with an OG of 1.127 is pretty difficult due to the low extraction efficiency caused by such a thick mash. Additional mash tuns aren't the answer, collecting more pre-boil wort of a lower gravity and concentrating it with an extended boil is the answer.

You could add DME to hit the higher gravities. I don't think there's one answer to this question.

 

[SEndorf]

It would depend on your end goal. If you are trying to shorten the brew day, add more grain to hit higher gravities. If you are chasing efficiencies, go for long boils. If it gives the perceived character you're looking for, that is all the reason you need.

I've done 10 min boils to 90 min boils, just depends on what my goal for the brew is.

Recipes can easily be adjusted. I was under the long held belief that longer boils on light pilz prevented potential "problems."
I'd prefer to save the 30 minutes. Not the first time I've been updated here on HBT......

 

[Jayjay1976]

You could add DME to hit the higher gravities. I don't think there's one answer to this question.

I only buy DME to make starters, and wouldn't consider using it in an actual beer. I'm AG to the bone.

 

[Big Monk]

Trying to brew an all-grain bourbon county stout clone with an OG of 1.127 is pretty difficult due to the low extraction efficiency caused by such a thick mash. Additional mash tuns aren't the answer, collecting more pre-boil wort of a lower gravity and concentrating it with an extended boil is the answer.

Yes. Ginormous beers and Scottish ales seem to be the valid outlier here.

 

[NineMileStyle]

I love the fact that homebrewing allows us to brew what we want the way we want to do it.
The fact is...the same recipe boiled for 2 minutes or 2 hours, will deliver a different finished product.
Boiling the same recipe with electricity, or propane or wood fire or hot rocks will all deliver a different finished product.
Increasing your OG by extended boiling or increasing your grain bill or adding DME will deliver a different finished product.

I say...make what you like to drink the way you like....but don't rob yourself of knowledge and experience by not trying it the way the other guy does it.

I think this makes 4 cents.

 

[NineMileStyle]

I only buy DME to make starters, and wouldn't consider using it in an actual beer. I'm AG to the bone.

 

[shoreman]

Concentrated sugars and better hop utilization (comes from commercial brewers).

 

[tll77]

I'm AG to the bone.

Ha!
My bone marrow is AG