60 min vs 90 min boils

[Weizenberg]

Those home brewers who want to save on money spent on the boil would be better off covering the kettle for 30 min with a gentle boil, then the final 30 mins a harder boil with the lid off.

Totally agree.

Indeed, this is good advice and easy to implement. I suggested similar but a slighly different schedule which one can interpret as hard-gentle-hard.

There is no need to boil hard for 60 minutes or longer. This can actually produce exessive thermal stress (as pointed out earlier - see literature by Kunze, Narziẞ, Back and others).

I stopped 90 minute boils years ago.

My BK is insulated with Armaflex and has a lid with chimney.

 

[Agentgonzo]

I would also guess that those advocating shorter boil times have never had their beers evaluated by a certified beer judge who would be able to point out any flaws in their process

The winner of the premium category of the GBBF homebrew festival was boiled for 30 minutes .
https://www.thehomebrewforum.co.uk/threads/great-british-beer-festival.99058/post-1156557If certified beer judges can't spot the "flaws" in the above beer and named it winner, I'd feel really silly saying it made an inferior beer.

 

[foxy]

The winner of the premium category of the GBBF homebrew festival was boiled for 30 minutes .
https://www.thehomebrewforum.co.uk/threads/great-british-beer-festival.99058/post-1156557If certified beer judges can't spot the "flaws" in the above beer and named it winner, I'd feel really silly saying it made an inferior beer.

But the judges weren't certified beer judges.

 

[Agentgonzo]

But the judges weren't certified beer judges.

Yeah, they were

 

[foxy]

Yeah, they were

I think you should check, they weren't certified BJCP judges.

 

[WM7793]

Like all things in life there are various perceptions to excellence and quality, beer included. Some people are happy with what others may consider to be an inferior product, as long as that person is satisfied, then no one can criticise their decision. It has to work both ways though, if some people make decisions on what they feel are best practices in trying to create an excellent end product, then those people also shouldn’t be criticised for their efforts

 

[Agentgonzo]

Like all things in life there are various perceptions to excellence and quality, beer included. Some people are happy with what others may consider to be an inferior product, as long as that person is satisfied, then no one can criticise their decision. It has to work both ways though, if some people make decisions on what they feel are best practices in trying to create an excellent end product, then those people also shouldn’t be criticised for their efforts

. there are so many variables in making beer, that to say any given individual part has a golden rule that will make the "best possible" beer is nonsense. If people/companies make their best beer with a 30/45/60/90 minute boil, then that's fantastic. But they shouldn't criticise others who use a different process and and belittle it by calling it inferior or "just beer" rather than "great beer" without even seeing/drinking the final product.

 

[Agentgonzo]

Coincidentally, I'm trying my first 30 minute boil today in almost 20 years of brewing . My normal regime is a 60 minute boil.

 

[Sadfield]

Like all things in life there are various perceptions to excellence and quality, beer included. Some people are happy with what others may consider to be an inferior product, as long as that person is satisfied, then no one can criticise their decision. It has to work both ways though, if some people make decisions on what they feel are best practices in trying to create an excellent end product, then those people also shouldn’t be criticised for their efforts

Indeed. It's possible to brew an award winning beer with a 30 minute boil, but it's also possible that the winning beer could have scored better with a 60 or 90 minute boil. Which is at the heart of what the OP was asking. What changes as boil length increases (or decreases)?

 

[Agentgonzo]

Indeed. It's possible to brew an award winning beer with a 30 minute boil, but it's also possible that the winning beer could have scored better with a 60 or 90 minute boil. Which is at the heart of what the OP was asking. What changes as boil length increases (or decreases)?

And indeed it's also possible it could have scored better with a 15 minute boil!

 

[WM7793]

Agentgonzo, I wish you the very best with your brew day. Please read my earlier posts carefully before you make broad comments about what I have actually said.

 

[Sadfield]

And indeed it's also possible it could have scored better with a 15 minute boil!

Go on then, explain how. That'll go some way to answering the OP's question. What degradation occurs with that extra 15 minutes boil?

 

[Agentgonzo]

Agentgonzo, I wish you the very best with your brew day. Please read my earlier posts carefully before you make broad comments about what I have actually said.

Thank you

I was agreeing with you and my comments about criticism weren't directed at you . Apologies for any offence/confusion

 

[WM7793]

Let’s respect each other’s, and other forum members opinions, how each one of us is trying to make the “best possible beer” that they’re able to. There will be considerable differences between the forum members equipment to achieve that process. At the end of the day we all want to do the best we can without criticism. It’s very different if a person asks for advice, and that will inevitably bring different opinions to the fore.

 

[WM7793]

I was agreeing with you and my comments about criticism weren't directed at you . Apologies for any offence/confusion

Sorry, forgot to say apology accepted

 

[marshbrewer]

It does surprise me how this topic seems to cause ire like no other. Mash times don't seem to kick off as much.

 

[Jim Brewster]

Good point, it makes no difference to my homebrew which is always gone in a matter of weeks. The commercial breweries are mostly if not all still doing 60 minutes plus boils, however there's usually with a 60 minute addition in most recipes so they would have to keep to this for consistently of product.

Just a thought as well, but on huge commercial scales it takes quite a lot longer for the wort to come to a boil, so saving 30 minutes on the rolling boil is a less significant saving on overall costs.

But now would definitely be the time for looking into reduced boil times in commercial breweries if ever there was one, although I don't suppose we'll see it widely adopted.

 

[Sadfield]

Good point, it makes no difference to my homebrew which is always gone in a matter of weeks. The commercial breweries are mostly if not all still doing 60 minutes plus boils, however there's usually with a 60 minute addition in most recipes so they would have to keep to this for consistently of product.

Just a thought as well, but on huge commercial scales it takes quite a lot longer for the wort to come to a boil, so saving 30 minutes on the rolling boil is a less significant saving on overall costs.

But now would definitely be the time for looking into reduced boil times in commercial breweries if ever there was one, although I don't suppose we'll see it widely adopted.

We're told lower hop utilisation can be easily corrected when converting recipes from 60 to 30 minutes. Yet, breweries making hoppy, New England style pale ales with virtually no bittering addition, haven't adopted short boils, even in the face of such energy costs. Why would that be? Who decided 30' was the new benchmark, why not 10 or 20'? Why boil at all?

 

[foxy]

Good point, it makes no difference to my homebrew which is always gone in a matter of weeks. The commercial breweries are mostly if not all still doing 60 minutes plus boils, however there's usually with a 60 minute addition in most recipes so they would have to keep to this for consistently of product.

Just a thought as well, but on huge commercial scales it takes quite a lot longer for the wort to come to a boil, so saving 30 minutes on the rolling boil is a less significant saving on overall costs.

But now would definitely be the time for looking into reduced boil times in commercial breweries if ever there was one, although I don't suppose we'll see it widely adopted.

There are systems out there in the commercial brewing world which can complete a boil in 30 mins, and you are right hop additions would be a hindrance to a 30 minute boil but often hops are added in the form of extract, sometimes after fermentation.

 

[Weizenberg]

Steinecker-Krones offers the Merlin boiler which typically boils the wort in 35-40 minutes. However, this is highly optimized equipment (albeit already superseeded) and not at all comparable to what we have.

It appears that the motivation is to boil just right -- which is the diffcult bit.

Earlier on I posted a table of (professional) brewing systems and their boil times. (Source: Back, Narziß)

Not sure I am up to date with the latest, but it appears that energy rationalisation has been an ongoing concern ever since. The impresssive Equitherm system was launched as far back as in 2011....

I don't see thinking about better boiling and the parameters affecting the results as controversial - even when people's approaches vary or disagree. As home brewer one has the freedom to alter parameters quite easily and freely within ones realm of possibilities. It is always intersting to hear about other peoples' experiences. There is a degree of experimentation and discovery that one should always be open to.

It's one of our strengths.