Boil Times and how to Know What to Use

[marshbrewer]

I've really taken to shorter boil times. In some of my historical recipes, I've dropped the boil time down to as low as 90 mins from about an hour and a half.

 

[The Baron]

Is that a typo Marshbrewer? 90mins from a hour and a half

 

[marshbrewer]

No, it's not a typo, and I've noticed absolutely no difference in beer quality.

 

[Agentgonzo]

From what I have seen, people fall into one of the camps:

• Those that brew with 30/45 minute boils and make fantastic beer and are happy
• Those that have brew with 60-90 minute boils and make fantastic beer and are happy
• Those that seem to think everyone should brew for 60 minutes and assume that if you boil for 30 minutes, your beer must be inferior - despite having never tasted your beer.

 

[Sadfield]

Then there's the 4th and 5th catagory

• Those that understand the process, and can make great beer by not boiling, or boiling for hours. Knowing that the same result cannot be obtained by an altered process.
• Those not clever enough to understand, and invent group three despite the there being zero suggestion anyone has made an inferior beer.

 

[gavp1979]

Then there's the 4th and 5th catagory

• Those that understand the process, and can make great beer by not boiling, or boiling for hours. Knowing that the same result cannot be obtained by an altered process.
• Those not clever enough to understand, and invent group three despite the there being zero suggestion anyone has made an inferior beer.

I hate to pi$$ in your parade but a quote from this very thread (admittedly not by you) does suggest that anything other than a 60 minute boil will not give a 'decent' beer so group 3 does indeed appear to not be invented and maybe @Agentgonzo is a little bit more clever than you have him credit for

the boil time when in pursuit of a decent beer remains at 60 minutes

 

[Sadfield]

I hate to pi$$ in your parade but....

...that quote made no reference to other peoples beer being inferior. It could be that the sweet spot for @foxy is 60 minutes.

Then again, it could have been a very a general point about stability and shelf life, where there is a very valid conversation to be had about a too short or long boil. If you understand the process.

 

[MashBag]

From what I have seen, people fall into one of the camps:

• Those that brew with 30/45 minute boils and make fantastic beer and are happy
• Those that have brew with 60-90 minute boils and make fantastic beer and are happy

Third catagory ought to be bitter & unhappy

 

[Bzee]

What really matters is if the lid was on when you boiled it or not

 

[jof]

Here we go again....

 

[Sadfield]

 

[Slid]

I have used a 20 + 15m boil for what seems like ages and seen no drop off of quality in my peasant style, low hop beers. English and Belgians mainly.

 

[Rodcx500z]

I do 60 minute boils and not for any particular reason and the beer is good, it's all about what you like and what is good for you

 

[Slid]

I do 60 minute boils and not for any particular reason and the beer is good, it's all about what you like and what is good for you

Yep, whatever works for you, works.

 

[Consett26]

You can't get much better than reading Tim O'Rourke's technical papers, 35 years as a Master Brewer, and later years teaching brewers.
There are quite a few of his papers online something worthwhile downloading.
Also, have a look at the coagulated protein you get from a 30-minute boil and compare it to a 60-minute boil.
https://cdn.imagearchive.com/aussie...75832-02---The-function-of-wort-boiling11.pdf

I boil for two hours to get rid of as much protein as possible in an attempt to reduce chill haze. I've had mixed results, which is perhaps due to variations in the vigour of the boil caused by differing volumes. The article you link to mentions this, although I read it in Graham Wheeler's book years ago.

Perhaps the most interesting thing from that article is that hop utilisation *reduces* after an hour. I've been adding the bittering hops with an hour to go in the belief that this would avoid the beer becoming too bitter

 

[An Ankoù]

No, it's not a typo, and I've noticed absolutely no difference in beer quality.

That's brilliant. I'm going to do the same.

 

[An Ankoù]

You can't get much better than reading Tim O'Rourke's technical papers, 35 years as a Master Brewer, and later years teaching brewers.
There are quite a few of his papers online something worthwhile downloading.
Also, have a look at the coagulated protein you get from a 30-minute boil and compare it to a 60-minute boil.
https://cdn.imagearchive.com/aussie...75832-02---The-function-of-wort-boiling11.pdf

Excellent paper. I've found a couple, not least "Hops and Hop Products". Is there anywhere these papers are gathered together in one place?

 

[foxy]

I boil for two hours to get rid of as much protein as possible in an attempt to reduce chill haze. I've had mixed results, which is perhaps due to variations in the vigour of the boil caused by differing volumes. The article you link to mentions this, although I read it in Graham Wheeler's book years ago.

Perhaps the most interesting thing from that article is that hop utilisation *reduces* after an hour. I've been adding the bittering hops with an hour to go in the belief that this would avoid the beer becoming too bitter

A good hard boil and chilling immediately should force the protein out of the wort, no need to boil for two hours. Mash pH and sparge water play a major part too. Crash cooling to oC or just below will help as well.
Most bittering hops will go in at 60 minutes but there are some hops that are better put into the boil later, I am doing one this week using Galaxy hops the first addition is at 20 minutes.