Is a 60-minute boil really necessary?

[TorMag]

Other than 15 minutes, what are you really getting by cutting your boil down from 60 to 45, in the scheme of things, are you getting anything out of shorter boil time? If 15 minutes is a make it or break it setting for you, maybe you shouldn't brew that day.... Things can go wrong that could cost you way more time than 15 minutes.

 

[RM-MN]

I was recently in England and toured several well-known breweries. The boil at these places is 90-120 minutes almost without exception. Why, one might ask, would a professional brewer - concerned with turnover and production rates - invest the extra time if it wasn't necessary to produce a particular outcome?

Consider that some of the grain bills are very simple, nearly all pale malt in some cases. Boiling longer concentrates the wort, darkening it in addition to producing a higher gravity from less volume of grist. So it can be a way to produce a darker color even with a very pale grist. There are also flavor outcomes from a longer boil.

Boiling longer is not just about hops utilization. So do we need to do this? No, obviously not. But I wouldn't discount it either, as just another tool at your disposal for manipulating the beer you brew.

Maybe they boil that long because they were taught by a brewer who boiled that long because they were taught by a brewer who boiled that long because he forgot the beer while having time with his lady.

 

[McKnuckle]

Maybe they boil that long because they were taught...

I'm sure you're teasing, but... Don't make the mistake of discounting that which was learned and passed along by those who came before us, just because it was "a long time ago and they didn't know anything back then."

Of course it would be entirely absurd to discount what generations of brewers practiced and learned during the 19th and 20th centuries. And it would also be a shame to not explore what you can learn on your own through personal empiricism. It's all good.