60 min vs 90 min boils

[Robin54]

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

You could just do what you do and not tell anyone - think of all the suspense and puzzlement that would cause. Not telling you what I do - its a secret!

 

[Cheshire Cat]

You could just do what you do and not tell anyone - think of all the suspense and puzzlement that would cause. Not telling you what I do - its a secret!

But you are telling people what to do.

 

[Robin54]

what am I doing - you got a secret camera? Im not telling anyone to do anything!!

 

[Agentgonzo]

what am I doing - you got a secret camera? Im not telling anyone to do anything!!

I think he was saying you are telling people to to do the experiment and not tell anyone. Kind of recursive, and tongue in cheek I believe

 

[Robin54]

Not at all - do what you like - who cares

 

[Sadfield]

Like trees falling, it's a classic philosophical thought experiment.

"Does a brewer save 30 minutes of boiling time, if they don't spend half an hour making sure someone gets to hear about it."

 

[The Furnace Green Brewer]

I am going to boil my next 5 brews Pale ales, bitter, IPA Light ale and a porter for 60 minutes,

 

[foxy]

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.

I am not the one making the valued judgments on the qualifications of 'real brewing knowledge' it's those who buy their books. Miller, Zanashef, Fix, Papazan, Palmer and the one mentioned in my post. Gordon Strong, the only home brewer to win the Ninkasi award three times and author of two excellent books for the home brewer.
I can't see anyone is preventing you from from appreciating the stories and experience of other brewers, whether you cast judgment or not.

 

[Pennine]

I do wish we would discuss the merits of longer boils more. My reasoning is:

Higher sparge volumes and better efficiency, which is important for me due to limited grain bill volumes. Longer boil needed to concentrate the wort.

More mature bitterness, I prefer the 60-90 min bitterness qualities in most beers. I do shorten hazy IPAs as mild bitterness seems to fit well for them.

I have been tentatively getting better clarity with longer boils, or better coagulation and drop out after the boil is done.

DMS - seems like a non issue to me with modern malts.

Any others I am missing?

Also to qualify my boil temp is 94c so I likely need longer boils than sea level brewers.

 

[Agentgonzo]

I do wish we would discuss the merits of longer boils more.

Thank you. A sensible and reasonable discussion, rather than a rant that other people are wrong

My reasoning is:

Higher sparge volumes and better efficiency, which is important for me due to limited grain bill volumes. Longer boil needed to concentrate the wort.

Wort concentration can be important for some cases. Other people can get the same result by just adding more grain. Both are equally valid approaches, and cost/time may vary depending on your situation.

More mature bitterness, I prefer the 60-90 min bitterness qualities in most beers. I do shorten hazy IPAs as mild bitterness seems to fit well for them.

This is something I've not witnessed, because I haven't repeated the same brew and done side by side comparisons, though have heard about it. Can you describe the difference between "mild" and "harsh" bitterness in more detail? I find all bitterness harsh. How does the bitterness change as you boil (and can you say how I can appreciate it without sending me comparative samples)?

I have been tentatively getting better clarity with longer boils, or better coagulation and drop out after the boil is done.

Others have different experiences (which doesn't make yours or their's "wrong" or "bad advice for beginners"). I have a feeling your altitude means the coagulation takes longer time because your boil is at a lower temperature. This seems to agree with both the respected science and the wealth of empirical evidence. I have noticed that homebrewers (on average) boil a lot harder (volume for volume) than commercial breweries, so wonder to what effect the coagulation/drop-out/clarifying happens faster at the homebrew scale, so the full 60/90 minutes isn't as necessary at these harder boils. It's something I haven't found an answer to, and could help explain why homebrewers experiences (which shouldn't be discarded out of hand) differ from the experiences/practises/advice from pro-setups, where they brew in much larger volumes

DMS - seems like a non issue to me with modern malts.

Agree. DMS seems to be a non issue for homebrewers these days, even at a 30 minute boil. I've only heard of people warn of it from brewing texts, rather than first hand experience.

Does anyone know when the oft-quoted "modern malts" came into being? I have no idea, and can't find anything. Was it in the last 5 years? 10? 50?

 

[Alan_Reginato]

Oh, well. It's a good reason for a longer boil. Concentrate wort and save some money on bittering hops.

I use almost, sometimes all, hops at hopstand. And my last brewhouse efficiency was 89%. I do biab and sparge water is limited to 1l/kg of malt, room temperature, just to drop the temp to a range that I can squeeze the bag with my bare hands. So, now my standard boil time is 20 min. It's enough kill any bugs and create a decent hotbreak. Works for me, but certainly it isn't a rule.

 

[Polcho]

What is it with the ‘modern malts’ that is supposed to do away with the DMS issue?

 

[Davegase]

When I do my washing I always press the quicker wash button,
Is that ok ??

 

[Sadfield]

What is it with the ‘modern malts’ that is supposed to do away with the DMS issue?

Beats me, I'd love to know. I think it's one of those things that gets repeated ad nauseam without verification. I've read conflicting sources that over modification and under modification reduces SMM (the precursor do DMS). It is linked to nitrogen levels. Although this can be affected by variety, fertilisers, grain storage and malting. So perhaps modern technology and practices have reduced SMM in malt? When and how, I don't know.

I think the more important thing to consider is brewery process. Ignoring the small amount of DMS that occurs naturally in malt. Levels of DMS in beer is largely the result of brewery process from mash to fermentation. Conversion of SMM to removal of DMS. With DMS only effectively being a non-issue if you don't go above 80°C at any point in the process.

http://www.milkthefunk.com/wiki/Dimethyl_Sulfide
There's a study that many commercial beers actually contain levels of DMS above the flavour threshold. Indicating that a degree of DMS is actually part of character of beer. With some breweries controlling how much they create, through whirlpooling, to meet customer expectation.

But, now we are heading of around for another loop of the same argument. And I'll await the usual reprimand from insecure people, for knowing something, and wanting to learn more.

 

[Jim Brewster]

I'm definitely going to do a split batch to assess the differences. I have never boiled for 90 minutes though but for my own experience I want to compare an ale with 60 Vs 30, with the hops at 60/15/0 Vs 30/15/0. Not sure whether to go for the same hop addition amounts or the same IBUs, tempted to do the same amounts

 

[Alan_Reginato]

I'm definitely going to do a split batch to assess the differences. I have never boiled for 90 minutes though but for my own experience I want to compare an ale with 60 Vs 30, with the hops at 60/15/0 Vs 30/15/0, and the same IBU around 25-30

Don't forget to do a triangle test, with experts, otherwise your experiment won't be relevant to the homebrew community.

 

[chthon]

Beats me, I'd love to know. I think it's one of those things that gets repeated ad nauseam without verification. I've read conflicting sources that over modification and under modification reduces SMM (the precursor do DMS). It is linked to nitrogen levels. Although this can be affected by variety, fertilisers, grain storage and malting. So perhaps modern technology and practices have reduced SMM in malt? When and how, I don't know.

I think the more important thing to consider is brewery process. Ignoring the small amount of DMS that occurs naturally in malt. Levels of DMS in beer is largely the result of brewery process from mash to fermentation. Conversion of SMM to removal of DMS. With DMS only effectively being a non-issue if you don't go above 80°C at any point in the process.

http://www.milkthefunk.com/wiki/Dimethyl_Sulfide
There's a study that many commercial beers actually contain levels of DMS above the flavour threshold. Indicating that a degree of DMS is actually part of character of beer. With some breweries controlling how much they create, through whirlpooling, to meet customer expectation.

But, now we are heading of around for another loop of the same argument. And I'll await the usual reprimand from insecure people, for knowing something, and wanting to learn more.

I think this comes from Brülosophy, where they did experiments with shorter boils vs. longer boils to check for the differences in DMS. The results were that there were no appreciable differences. And this result was then carried through to their "Short and Shoddy" series, where beers are brewed with shorter mash times and shorter boils, with adjustment of the amount of hops needed (more of course) and malts needed (also more, the mash being no sparge, with an infusion mash of 30 minutes).

 

[Davegase]

I think this comes from Brülosophy, where they did experiments with shorter boils vs. longer boils to check for the differences in DMS. The results were that there were no appreciable differences. And this result was then carried through to their "Short and Shoddy" series, where beers are brewed with shorter mash times and shorter boils, with adjustment of the amount of hops needed (more of course) and malts needed (also more, the mash being no sparge, with an infusion mash of 30 minutes).

 

[Sadfield]

I've asked 20 blind people and only 6 identified that "modern malts" originated from Brulosphy, which is statistically insignificant. This fits with my experience, having asked myself the same question over a number of days.

 

[Davegase]

I've asked 20 blind people and only 6 identified that "modern malts" originated from Brulosphy, which is statistically insignificant. This fits with my experience, having asked myself the same question over a number of days.

I can't remember where, but over 30 years ago I read that modern malts don't require decoction mashing.
But the Budvar brewery still consider it essential. I believe their mashing takes 3 or 4 hours and they boil for 90 minutes ! Then after long cold fermentation they lager for 90 days.
Good things come to those who wait !!