60 min vs 90 min boils

[marshbrewer]

It's worth mentioning that Heath doesn't actually provide and background or evidence to back up his 30 minutes theory, other than just insinuating that anything else is "old fashioned"

 

[foxy]

I think we are having a good debate. All points have been valid. I respect David Heath and appreciate philthebrewers findings. I checked my Gordon Strong book and he's on the 60/90 minute side. I'm going to give 30 mins boil on my next brew and see how it goes.

Buddsy

By all means go ahead and give it a go, just be mindful the the 30 minutes figure is an arbitrary one, plucked at random by a member of the home brewing fraternity. You won't find any one with real brewing knowledge, amateur or professional, not only Gordon Strong advocating a boil of less than 60 minutes.

 

[Polcho]

It’s all very interesting stuff. Sadly, my knowledge, in terms of beer is only two years old.
I’ll be going with the longer boil at least until I have a deeper understanding of it all.

I can stretch to the extra electric at present, so it’s not a big deal for me.

 

[Agentgonzo]

It's important to remember the simple "facts" when discussing boil length. Everyone who does the same as me makes great beer. And everyone who brews differently doesn't know how to brew and lacks intelligence, resulting in rubbish beer. And any beer judged highly when brewed differently obviously had rubbish judges who don't know what they are doing and can't taste for ****.

 

[Sadfield]

https://media.tenor.com/EksWJ-xY5EsAAAAM/wait-what.gif

 

[MickDundee]

It's important to remember the simple "facts" when discussing boil length. Everyone who does the same as me makes great beer. And everyone who brews differently doesn't know how to brew and lacks intelligence, resulting in rubbish beer. And any beer judged highly when brewed differently obviously had rubbish judges who don't know what they are doing and can't taste for ****.

View attachment 75747

This thread is worth a read if you want to see posts like that:
https://www.thehomebrewforum.co.uk/threads/cut-short-30min-boil.98891/

 

[Agentgonzo]

This thread is worth a read if you want to see posts like that:
https://www.thehomebrewforum.co.uk/threads/cut-short-30min-boil.98891/

I remember that one. It's the same thing. That thread got shut down because it devolved into a pissing contest between religious zealots big argument. So the same trolls just moved into this (6-year old) thread to continue the argument.

 

[The Baron]

It's important to remember the simple "facts" when discussing boil length. Everyone who does the same as me makes great beer. And everyone who brews differently doesn't know how to brew and lacks intelligence, resulting in rubbish beer. And any beer judged highly when brewed differently obviously had rubbish judges who don't know what they are doing and can't taste for ****.

Totally agree Agent let brewers make it how they like if it suits them, I sit on the fence and have done for years a 45 minute boil so in the middle.
I bet no beer judge could put in their comments that it had been a 30 minute boil though and not as 60 minute

 

[gavp1979]

I remember that one. It's the same thing. That thread got shut down because it devolved into a pissing contest between religious zealots big argument. So the same trolls just moved into this (6-year old) thread to continue the argument.

Until you pointed it out I had not realised how old the start of this thread was

 

[Sadfield]

If we're pointing out how old the thread is, can we acknowledge that it wasn't about 30 minute boils either. And no one was saying that it couldn't be done.

Remind me who are the zealots?

 

[Jim Brewster]

just be mindful the the 30 minutes figure is an arbitrary one

60 minutes is also arbitrary to be fair, although tried and tested. 59 minutes will be fine!

 

[The Furnace Green Brewer]

I have brewed LME with hops yeast and water for 45 mins which are some of the best beer my friends like

 

[WM7793]

Boil for whatever you’re happy with, but don’t complain if others think you’re making inferior beer.

 

[foxy]

It's important to remember the simple "facts" when discussing boil length. Everyone who does the same as me makes great beer. And everyone who brews differently doesn't know how to brew and lacks intelligence, resulting in rubbish beer. And any beer judged highly when brewed differently obviously had rubbish judges who don't know what they are doing and can't taste for ****.

View attachment 75747

I will say once again. New brewers do your own research, and separate the anecdotal from the empirical facts.
As for judging, they aren't rubbish judges if the are BJCP certified or even recognised judges.

 

[Philthebrewer]

By all means go ahead and give it a go, just be mindful the the 30 minutes figure is an arbitrary one, plucked at random by a member of the home brewing fraternity. You won't find any one with real brewing knowledge, amateur or professional, not only Gordon Strong advocating a boil of less than 60 minutes.

I respectfully request that we refrain from making value judgements on whether people have "real brewing knowledge" or not. I appreciate the stories of experiences by other brewers and hope they will continue to report them in this forum without judgement.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Have any of the critics of the 30 minutes boil on this forum actually tried only boiling for that time and comparing the beer to a beer made with a 60 or 90 minutes boil?

 

[Sadfield]

Have any of the critics of the 30 minutes boil on this forum actually tried only boiling for that time and comparing the beer to a beer made with a 60 or 90 minutes boil?

Likewise have any of the proponents? I very much doubt many, if anyone, has actually done a proper side by side brew and evaluation, keep all other variables constant. If they have they are yet to provide any meaningful evidence to confirm it makes no difference in any way. The closest I've seen is brulosophy and that only evaluates, inconclusively, for DMS. Yet there's a clear colour difference between the two beers presented.

Anedotal evidence in either direction is all well and good, but comes with a significant amount of comfirmation bias.

And then we have the Myth Busters who completely ignore the anecdotal evidence of centuries of brewers. If we give each piece of anecdotal evidence equal merit, then purely in volume, the evidence for 30 minute boiling is massively outweighed by the anecdotal evidence for not doing it.

Brew however you want, but accept that boiling for 60 minutes holds more empirical and scientific backing than 30 minute boils. And thus should be start point and best practice advice for all brewers.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I boil for 60 minutes and have since I joined the forum previously boiled for 90. I’ve not noticed any deterioration in my brews.

 

[buddsy]

Have any of the critics of the 30 minutes boil on this forum actually tried only boiling for that time and comparing the beer to a beer made with a 60 or 90 minutes boil?

I guess the idea could be if you go to the troupe of making a brew you don't want to risk doing anything wasting all your time and effort.

I wonder if there would be any value to brew as normal (for 60 mins) and after the hot break and giving it a few minutes after the first additions and taking a sample and compare it for colour with one later on just before the latter additions after approx another 30mins? Would at least be an easy test with nothing lost. Would tell you if as the boil goes on there is any difference in colour over time.

buddsy

 

[Cwrw666]

I boil for 60 minutes and have since I joined the forum previously boiled for 90. I’ve not noticed any deterioration in my brews.

You're not allowed to stick to the thread title - you're meant to automatically switch the subject to 30 minute boils.