90 minute boils v shorter boils

[Griff097]

After my quadruple brewday, it got me thinking how much difference does a 90 minute boil for a stout make verses a shorter boil, same with the standard 60 minute boil and I have seen people mention 30 and even 15 minute boils.

Over multiple batches it adds up to quite a saving if you take it to the extremes, what do you guys think?

 

[Rodcx500z]

Never done a 90 minute boil but, i have 2 ag kits here from cml witch call for one will let you know next week

 

[chthon]

I have done a couple of 30 minute boils last year, because I wanted to brew some small experimental batches. You definitely need to use more hops than the Tinseth calculation would let you believe.

Longer boils would give more maillard products, but if your boil pH is more or less in the correct range of 5.3, this is rather minimal.

If you need a higher bitterness, you will achieve that in a longer boil with less hops.

The only advantage I currently see is that you could sparge a bit more from the mash, then evaporate more, e.g. to increase your efficiency with stronger beers.

Taste wise, I also wait on the experiment from @Rodcx500z.

 

[scomet]

Just my opinion, 90 min boils should be minimum for a stout, there is a lot more to boils than simple conversion. Short boils you're just making 'raw ale' it will still be beer but not a patch on what it could have been. Cheers.

 

[The Baron]

I only do 45 minute boils or if I am doing say a IPA or heavily whirlpool hopped beer I do a 30 minute boil. I have never found any discernible difference in my beers at all and it saves time on brewday

 

[obscure]

A lot of the early recipes I made where Graham Wheeler ones, which almost exclusively call for 90 minute boils, one recipe that I use regularly (the Archer Bitter) I have upped the hops slightly and dropped the boil down to 60 minutes and it does not seem to have had a negative effect. However I have also tried scaling down to 30 minutes and it just doesn’t seem to work as well, and seems to come out less clear as well the best results I’ve had for 30 minute boils have being smash beers made with American hops. I tend to make these in the summer using Kveik yeast, and they make beers that while not particularly complex are pleasant summer garden beers (although they do seem to come out somewhat cloudy not sure if this is the yeast, the boil time or something else entirely.

 

[Cwrw666]

Historic beer recipes usually call for 90 minute boils - a bit of a compromise this as breweries often used to boil for hours. Prolonged boiling does lead to darkening of the wort and I dare say other changes as well.
I've never tried a 30 minute boil but I can't believe it produces `raw beer'. I've made a raw beer with no boiling at all and it doesn't taste like anything else as you don't have a hot break so the beer is full of proteins you don't normally get.

 

[Sandimas]

A lot of the early recipes I made where Graham Wheeler ones, which almost exclusively call for 90 minute boils,

I do the same, I make a lot of his recipes with a 60min boil and adjusting the hops to hit the target IBU. Makes great beer so I'd be interested in what difference a 90min boil would do.

Have also done some 30min boils with hop-forward American IPA-style beers, where I guess the complexity isn't necessary as it's all about the late hops.

 

[Griff097]

I have done a couple of 30 minute boils last year, because I wanted to brew some small experimental batches. You definitely need to use more hops than the Tinseth calculation would let you believe.

Longer boils would give more maillard products, but if your boil pH is more or less in the correct range of 5.3, this is rather minimal.

If you need a higher bitterness, you will achieve that in a longer boil with less hops.

The only advantage I currently see is that you could sparge a bit more from the mash, then evaporate more, e.g. to increase your efficiency with stronger beers.

Taste wise, I also wait on the experiment from @Rodcx500z.

Funnily enough that was what I did yesterday, I was brewing enough for a keg, rather than as much as I could fit in the FV and it allowed me to oversparge and have a more vigarous boil, its the first time I have overshot on efficiency ever.
The first two beers I did were both stouts with 90 minute boils, I have found longer mash times give more depth to the flavour as well, not sure if that bit is my imagination?

 

[dmtaylor]

Don't boil for 90 minutes. Just don't.

 

[Griff097]

Don't boil for 90 minutes. Just don't.

Could you expand on that maybe?

 

[The Baron]

Although I do 45 minute boils it does depend on your style of beer. There is certainly some benefit from longer boils if you are doing Stouts, Porters and any fuller flavoured beer as you do get that boil down thickness with Maillard effect that adds to those styles but for any other lighter styles like standard Bitters, IPA's, Blondes and lager types 45 minutes is enough and if you are doing whirlpooling for massive hop additions 30 minutes is enough as the hoppage will over ride any benefit from Maillard effect taste etc which is generally not required in the afore mentioned styles.
This is only my opinion but I have found it stand me in good stead

 

[Sadfield]

The longer I intend keeping a beer, the longer I boil. Usually 60-90 minutes, but I've gone longer and shorter. All for the flavour and reductones from melanoidins.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beerandbrewing.com/dictionary/amp/2ygB7hewgb

 

[Moe]

I’ve done 30m boils for my last few brews now. Purely to save time on a brew day, with the added bonus of less steam to deal with. I throw in a few more hops where necessary.

Purely subjective, but I can’t tell any difference in the beers. You still get a hot break, and efficiency isn’t much (if any) different to 60 minute boil beers.

I do agree with the stout comment though, when I did a stout with a 30m boil, it seemed to me to lack some of the deep roasty flavour of my previous efforts. Although I also used a different yeast and a slightly different grain bill, so this could have been due to any or all of those factors?

Most of the David Heath recipes now use 30m boils or less, which is why I started doing them.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I’ve done 30m boils for my last few brews now. Purely to save time on a brew day, with the added bonus of less steam to deal with. I throw in a few more hops where necessary.

Purely subjective, but I can’t tell any difference in the beers. You still get a hot break, and efficiency isn’t much (if any) different to 60 minute boil beers.

I do agree with the stout comment though, when I did a stout with a 30m boil, it seemed to me to lack some of the deep roasty flavour of my previous efforts. Although I also used a different yeast and a slightly different grain bill, so this could have been due to any or all of those factors?

Most of the David Heath recipes now use 30m boils or less, which is why I started doing them.

And every recipe by DH uses Kveik

 

[Moe]

And every recipe by DH uses Kveik

I’m not a massive fan of kveik though, I prefer to use more tradional yeast specific to the styles, mostly M44, Verdant and nottingham to be fair.

 

[Dorst]

as you can see there are different takes. Common knowledge was that lighter kilned malts and especially pilsner malt have a lot of S-methylmethionine (SMM) in them. When not boiled long enough this will lead to DMS (corn) off flavours. Recommendations are to boil 90 minutes when using a lot of pilsner malt.

Having said that I do not notice much difference between a 60 and 90 minute boil when using all pilsner malt. Just make sure the boil is vigirous. So yeah..

Another reason can be to get to a higher OG by boiling off liquids.

 

[AJA]

Brülosophy › 2015/03/11
exBEERiment | Boil Length: 30 Minutes vs. 60 Minutes In A Pale Ale

https://brulosophy.com/2015/09/14/boil-length-pt-2-pilsner-malt-exbeeriment-results/
Some links here to 2 investigations on boil length. No evidence for a different outcome based on boil lengths for these.

I brew mostly pale beers so err on the side of shorter boils (45mins) to avoid too much darkening (although it is apparently very slight), and to save time.

Also, long boils mean more boil off, so need to adjust the recipe according or you'll have a higher than intended OG.

 

[Sadfield]

Brülosophy › 2015/03/11
exBEERiment | Boil Length: 30 Minutes vs. 60 Minutes In A Pale Ale

https://brulosophy.com/2015/09/14/boil-length-pt-2-pilsner-malt-exbeeriment-results/
Some links here to 2 investigations on boil length. No evidence for a different outcome based on boil lengths for these.

I brew mostly pale beers so err on the side of shorter boils (45mins) to avoid too much darkening (although it is apparently very slight), and to save time.

Also, long boils mean more boil off, so need to adjust the recipe according or you'll have a higher than intended OG.

Even from the thumbnail in the link, a difference in colour can be seen. And that's 30,60 minute boils, not 90 as the original post asks.

 

[AJA]

The thumbnail link compares a 30 minute and a 90 minute one.
And the colour change is undesirable, no?