60 Minute Vs 90 Minute

[paulpj26]

Is there any advantage to doing a 90 minute mash and 90 minute boil as opposed to doing 60 minutes?

I've always done 90 minutes as per GW book, however, I keep on reading that a lot of people do 60 minutes.

Am I just wasting my time and electricity doing 90 minutes?

:

 

[Runwell-Steve]

I have always done a 60 minute boil as that seems to work well for me and I have never had any problems.

I used to do 60 minute mashes and thought that was fine, but nowadays to save time I mash overnight and am finding I am getting a much better efficiency, so I would say a longer mash may be worthwhile.

 

[dan_loves_beer]

I mash for 90 mins if at a real low temp just to ensure conversion, 90 min boil is supposed to help reduce dms, but I haunt had a problem but I have never made any larger or really light beers yet either.

 

[Aleman]

Rather than specific times, e.g. 90 minutes, consider the following

Mash to achieve full conversion of the starches to achieve a fermentable/attunative wort

The crazy thing is that this normally takes around 90 minutes . . . that is not to say that with modern malts it will be achieved with a 60 minute mash, but the attenuation of the wort may well be different. If using the Iodine test to determine the Starch End Point it may well (with modern malts) show a negative test in 15 minutes . . . unfortunately a lot of brewers are assuming that this means that you only need to mash for 15 minutes . . .all it means is that the free starch has been converted to dextrins . . . the Iodine test when done properly tells us a lot more than that including how much conversion to dextrins/maltose has taken place.

Boil to achieve the hot break.

Achieving the hot break is the secondary purpose of the boil (primary is extraction of bitterness from the hops). If you have a very vigorous boil you may well achieve the hot break with a 60 minute boil, I prefer a less vigorous boil and normally find the hot break forms after around 75-90 minutes.

 

[paulpj26]

Cheers guys :

I'll stick with the 90 minutes then, my boiler isn't that vigorous when boiling

I understand that some pilsner malts actually require 90 minutes, I assume this has somthing with DMS?

:thumb:

 

[craigite]

Great post, thanks.
These are the type of questions I really like to see; and obvoiusly the answers too.

Depending on the flavour I aim for I have some mash times of 110mins and some at 60mins.
For boiling, some 60min, a good few at 75min, but most over 90min.

 

[Talon_Ted]

aleman

i hate to disagree with you but i consider the primary reason for boiling to be the sterilising of the wort.

if you haven't done that then all the others matter nought!

TT

 

[Aleman]

i hate to disagree with you but i consider the primary reason for boiling to be the sterilising of the wort.

If that was the case then all you have to do is boil for 15 minutes . . . While you can extract a considerable amount of bitterness from boiling the hops for only 15 minutes in order to achieve a good IBU level you have to have large amounts of hops . . . the problem is that such a short boil of such a large amount of hops would result in a poor hop flavour . . . there are undesirable hop compounds that must be driven off, hence the longer boil duration required than that for pure 'sterilisation'

 

[unclepumble]

Mash to achieve full conversion of the starches to achieve a fermentable/attunative wort

The crazy thing is that this normally takes around 90 minutes . . . that is not to say that with modern malts it will be achieved with a 60 minute mash, but the attenuation of the wort may well be different. If using the Iodine test to determine the Starch End Point it may well (with modern malts) show a negative test in 15 minutes . . . unfortunately a lot of brewers are assuming that this means that you only need to mash for 15 minutes . . .all it means is that the free starch has been converted to dextrins . . . the Iodine test when done properly tells us a lot more than that including how much conversion to dextrins/maltose has taken place.

Actually with some modern Malts this only takes 40 mins max, "I am talking about certain beers that have plenty of adjuncts added but I can assure 40mins mash all done"

Talon_Ted wrote:
i hate to disagree with you but i consider the primary reason for boiling to be the sterilising of the wort.

If that was the case then all you have to do is boil for 15 minutes . . . While you can extract a considerable amount of bitterness from boiling the hops for only 15 minutes in order to achieve a good IBU level you have to have large amounts of hops . . . the problem is that such a short boil of such a large amount of hops would result in a poor hop flavour . . . there are undesirable hop compounds that must be driven off, hence the longer boil duration required than that for pure 'sterilisation'

Not to mention also that you need to vigourously boil for around 60-70mins without copper finings to get the proteins to break giving you a clean clear wort, without this you would get a Muddy beer. (This is usually helped with the addition of copper finings, allowing shorter boil times)

UP

 

[Sean_Mc]

I can get away with 60min with a pale ale, clearly see the hot break forming, but seem to have to give it 75-90min for stout and other heavy malt beers :hmm:

I always mash for 90min, it takes me that long to cut the grass and tidy up the kids toys :evil:

 

[battwave]

I have always done a 60 minute boil as that seems to work well for me and I have never had any problems.

I used to do 60 minute mashes and thought that was fine, but nowadays to save time I mash overnight and am finding I am getting a much better efficiency, so I would say a longer mash may be worthwhile.

I'm with Runwell-Steve. I've done 60 minute boils for years. Tried 90 minute boils a couple of times and couldn't find any benefit.

Also really impressed with overnight mashes, which I've started recently. However, insulation is everything in holding the temperature; especially for 8 hours-plus sleepers like me!

 

[orange]

I am not getting the hot break even in a 90min vigorous boil. Anybody know why? :hmm:

 

[jamesb]

If that was the case then all you have to do is boil for 15 minutes . . . While you can extract a considerable amount of bitterness from boiling the hops for only 15 minutes in order to achieve a good IBU level you have to have large amounts of hops . . . the problem is that such a short boil of such a large amount of hops would result in a poor hop flavour . . . there are undesirable hop compounds that must be driven off, hence the longer boil duration required than that for pure 'sterilisation'

I can think of plenty of breweries who do maybe 8 IBU in the main boil and make up the rest of the bitterness with a ridiculous amount of hops at 15 minutes. They make good beer with a fantastic hop flavour.

 

[Aleman]

I can think of plenty of breweries who do maybe 8 IBU in the main boil and make up the rest of the bitterness with a ridiculous amount of hops at 15 minutes. They make good beer with a fantastic hop flavour.

But do they boil for 15 minutes or is it 60 or 90

Actually I could think of a good number of breweries that do it that way too, and I have done it myself.With some of the new varieties of hops it works well, but with more traditional hops (and the nobles) it is less successful. . . . Brewdog are perhaps the best (and worst) example of this

Sometimes, however, I do long for the days gone by, of subtle, full flavoured, balanced beers . . . Now where is the sigh smilie

 

[jamesb]

I can think of plenty of breweries who do maybe 8 IBU in the main boil and make up the rest of the bitterness with a ridiculous amount of hops at 15 minutes. They make good beer with a fantastic hop flavour.

But do they boil for 15 minutes or is it 60 or 90

60 most of them. Including some with certain kit that I know you can't get a decent hot break at 60.

Actually I could think of a good number of breweries that do it that way too, and I have done it myself.With some of the new varieties of hops it works well, but with more traditional hops (and the nobles) it is less successful. . . . Brewdog are perhaps the best (and worst) example of this

Agreed. The new breed of American and NZ hops work a lot better for this technique than our boring varieties. Must sit and study the datasheets to work out why sometime. Fairly low co-hohumulone I suspect.

Sometimes, however, I do long for the days gone by, of subtle, full flavoured, balanced beers . . . Now where is the sigh smilie

Try some of the Thornbridge stuff coming out of the Hall, like the Alchemy X series. English bred variants of the American hops. Very subtle and not in your face and make a nice traditional ale with a slight twist.

 

[pjbiker]

Anyone got a picture to illustrate 'hot break' or lack of one?

At that stage I've always got lumps of hops and stuff floating about anyway. I suppose you need to run some off into a glass jar to see it?

I usually boil for 75minutes.

 

[Aleman]

Anyone got a picture to illustrate 'hot break' or lack of one?

This is one I did a while back . . . those 'lumps' are the hot break. . . . Despite what Palmer says

You do see it better if you remove a wineglass full during the boil . . . do this at 10 minutes intervals (and keep the samples) and you will see the hot break form and increase over time. . .when you get no increase in the break you know you have achieved the hot break . . .and know how long you need to boil for . .. . Next time