Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

General Category => All Grain Brewing => Topic started by: figgysbrew on March 07, 2017, 04:44:35 PM

Title: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: figgysbrew on March 07, 2017, 04:44:35 PM
Hello fellow homebrewers!

I'm planning on brewing a Blue Corn Cream Ale this weekend with Blue Corn Grits.  Recipe calls for 84% Base Malt of 4 lbs. 2 Row and 4 lbs. Pilsner.  I've always been told that when brewing with Pilsner Malt, 90 boil is need to get rid of that DMS.  My question is, being that it's only 4lbs, is 90 min boil really needed.  I'm also worried that the wort will become too caramelized and malty due to the 90 min. boil.  I appreciate anyone's help and advice.   
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: 69franx on March 07, 2017, 04:48:48 PM
Pretty sure it's been recently discussed and some are having no issues with only a 60 minute boil. I have used both 60&90 for my all pilsner pilsner and have not noticed any difference between them, although not tested side by side. I say give the 60 a shot and find out

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: curtdogg on March 07, 2017, 04:52:06 PM
A rolling boil for 60 minutes will be fine.
My Belgian ales use 80% pils malt and I've never had any issues.
Blue corn sounds interesting. Does it contribute any color ?
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: bayareabrewer on March 07, 2017, 04:53:14 PM
Hello fellow homebrewers!

I'm planning on brewing a Blue Corn Cream Ale this weekend with Blue Corn Grits.  Recipe calls for 84% Base Malt of 4 lbs. 2 Row and 4 lbs. Pilsner.  I've always been told that when brewing with Pilsner Malt, 90 boil is need to get rid of that DMS.  My question is, being that it's only 4lbs, is 90 min boil really needed.  I'm also worried that the wort will become too caramelized and malty due to the 90 min. boil.  I appreciate anyone's help and advice.

I brew beers with 100% pilsner base and boil for 60 minutes with 10% boil off rate and never have had issues with DMS.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: kramerog on March 07, 2017, 05:26:19 PM
Bear in mind that DMS is allowable in cream ales and a small amount is almost expected.  DMS is a bigger deal in lagers because of colder fermentation.  => 60 minutes should be fine.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: figgysbrew on March 07, 2017, 05:26:30 PM
A rolling boil for 60 minutes will be fine.
My Belgian ales use 80% pils malt and I've never had any issues.
Blue corn sounds interesting. Does it contribute any color ?

Yes it does!  I've made a blue corn lager and it had a purplish hue to it.  I get it locally from one of the pueblos here in Albuquerque.  Milled and all!
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: figgysbrew on March 07, 2017, 05:32:44 PM
60 Min boil it is!  I'm really appreciating everyone's feedback on this.   
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: curtdogg on March 07, 2017, 06:04:54 PM
You're welcome Doggy.
Maybe in your next Blue Corn cream ale you can add some Hatch chile. 😎
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: figgysbrew on March 07, 2017, 06:31:55 PM
I love Green Chili...just not in beer lol.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: HoosierBrew on March 08, 2017, 03:42:52 PM
I love Green Chili...just not in beer lol.


Agreed. Each his own.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: mabrungard on March 08, 2017, 04:36:38 PM
A significant drawback from a longer or more vigorous boil, is the production of thiobarbituric acid in the wort. That is a staling/oxidation precursor and it does make the resulting beer more prone to early staling. As mentioned above, it has largely been found that a 60 min boil is sufficient for avoiding DMS effects, even when using Pils malt. Don't worry too much about having a lot of boil vigor either. Having about 8 to 10 percent volume reduction during the boil is what the Pro's typically see and we homebrewers should target that too. Cover your kettle to a large degree and open it up at the last 5 min of the boil to assure the DMS is vented.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: denny on March 08, 2017, 04:41:01 PM
Tangent....do you need to boil at all?  I've been talking to a guy who has done several no boil batches in styles you wouldn't suspect.  He sent me this recently....

OK we had our monthly meeting last night and the RAW beer was very well received...  people could not believe that it never was boiled.  A few members are BJCP judges and one is a national ranked judge and they all found no off flavors and thought it was a good example of NEIPA.

I lnow you love questioning brewing conventions, maybe you could work up a Experimental Brewing episode on the subject...   I posted a witeup on Glen Ridge Homebrewers FB page
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: Pricelessbrewing on March 08, 2017, 04:43:58 PM
.

OK we had our monthly meeting last night and the RAW beer was very well received...  people could not believe that it never was boiled.  A few members are BJCP judges and one is a national ranked judge and they all found no off flavors and thought it was a good example of NEIPA.


I've had some raw ales as well, and while some have had some subtley strange flavor component I couldn't nail down. I wasn't sure if it was just a higher protein content due to no hot/cold break, or if it was some dms just above threshold..

How did he get the necessary bitterness? Did he use a hop tea or a >180F non-boil whirlpool?
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: The Beerery on March 08, 2017, 04:52:44 PM
If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: pkrone on March 08, 2017, 05:30:27 PM
If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

I think the answer is "maybe".     A lot of stuff we do is out of habit and "best practices" but not really based on thorough scientific testing.  (I'm reminded of the long-standing belief that HSA wasn't "a thing".)    Some styles may work with no boil (like an over-hopped quadruple IPA that melts your palate) and for others not so much.   I suspect the pros aren't all over this because of a lack of testing and are thus unwilling to try it at this time.

Come on, man.   You've spent a lot of effort probing people to be curious about low-oxygen (for which I am grateful), so why not be curious about this?   :)

Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: The Beerery on March 08, 2017, 05:35:54 PM
If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

I think the answer is "maybe".     A lot of stuff we do is out of habit and "best practices" but not really based on thorough scientific testing.  (I'm reminded of the long-standing belief that HSA wasn't "a thing".)    Some styles may work with no boil (like an over-hopped quadruple IPA that melts your palate) and for others not so much.   I suspect the pros aren't all over this because of a lack of testing and are thus unwilling to try it at this time.

Come on, man.   You've spent a lot of effort probing people to be curious about low-oxygen (for which I am grateful), so why not be curious about this?   :)

Because low oxygen is ALL OVER professional literature and coursework. Not boiling isn't :)
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: HoosierBrew on March 08, 2017, 05:36:54 PM
I've had some raw ales as well, and while some have had some subtley strange flavor component I couldn't nail down. I wasn't sure if it was just a higher protein content due to no hot/cold break, or if it was some dms just above threshold..

How did he get the necessary bitterness? Did he use a hop tea or a >180F non-boil whirlpool?


That was my question - the effects on the beer of the excess proteins/no hot or cold break. Interesting.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: brewinhard on March 08, 2017, 07:32:56 PM
I have definitely performed some no-boil berliner weisse's before with a mash hop that have turned out fantastic with no ill issues and placing well in comps. I have not done this with a non-soured beer though.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: denny on March 08, 2017, 07:37:28 PM
If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

Because we don't need no stinking pros telling us what to do?
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: denny on March 08, 2017, 07:42:08 PM
I've had some raw ales as well, and while some have had some subtley strange flavor component I couldn't nail down. I wasn't sure if it was just a higher protein content due to no hot/cold break, or if it was some dms just above threshold..

How did he get the necessary bitterness? Did he use a hop tea or a >180F non-boil whirlpool?


That was my question - the effects on the beer of the excess proteins/no hot or cold break. Interesting.

He uses a Grainfather.  After mash and sparge he raises the temp to 170 and does a large whirlpool addition.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: The Beerery on March 08, 2017, 08:09:45 PM
If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

Because we don't need no stinking pros telling us what to do?

Right.. Cause why would you ever listen to a professional?  You were from the music industry right? I am sure someone in their garage could do everything you could, only better. Cause whats training and experience, right?   ;)
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: denny on March 08, 2017, 08:15:21 PM
If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

Because we don't need no stinking pros telling us what to do?

Right.. Cause why would you ever listen to a professional?  You were from the music industry right? I am sure someone in their garage could do everything you could, only better. Cause whats training and experience, right?   ;)

Because my environment and experience is different than theirs.  I choose to look at science, try it, and decide whether or not it's applicable to my situation.  You can make your own choice.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: pkrone on March 08, 2017, 09:19:09 PM
If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

Because we don't need no stinking pros telling us what to do?

Right.. Cause why would you ever listen to a professional?  You were from the music industry right? I am sure someone in their garage could do everything you could, only better. Cause whats training and experience, right?   ;)

I won't argue with the importance of training and experience, but what about curiosity and innovation?   Aren't the latter 2 elements what got our predecessors fermenting stuff to start with?
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: Phil_M on March 09, 2017, 02:17:11 AM
Coming from the hot rodding hobby, there's an old saying, "cheap, fast, and good: pick two." In my experience, that applies to not just speed parts, but brewing too. (ok, maybe replace "fast" with "easy".) Everything has trade offs, the question is do those trade off align with your goals?

The trade offs for a no-boil beer doesn't align with my goals, so I don't plan on trying. YMMV.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: santoch on March 09, 2017, 02:37:14 AM
Quote from: denny
...and all thought it was a good example of NEIPA
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/55056957.jpg)
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: bayareabrewer on March 09, 2017, 02:49:06 AM
If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

Because we don't need no stinking pros telling us what to do?

Right.. Cause why would you ever listen to a professional?  You were from the music industry right? I am sure someone in their garage could do everything you could, only better. Cause whats training and experience, right?   ;)

I've provided you with a ton of sources from professionals stating meta does a poor job at high (4.2 and up) ph, yet you believe otherwise, most likely due to personal experience. You seem to pick and choose what you believe and what you follow, just like all of us.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: BrewnWKopperKat on March 09, 2017, 12:06:15 PM
If you didn't need to boil why would the pro's not be all over this??? The energy saving alone would be quite substantial, not to mention none of the pro brewing books or courses talk about that.. I don't buy it. Not to say you can't make "beer" without boiling, but...

Because we don't need no stinking pros telling us what to do?

Right.. Cause why would you ever listen to a professional?  You were from the music industry right? I am sure someone in their garage could do everything you could, only better. Cause whats training and experience, right?   ;)

I won't argue with the importance of training and experience, but what about curiosity and innovation?   
They [curiosity and innovation] are alive and doing well in my hobbies.  For me, that's what makes this hobby interesting. 
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: stpug on March 09, 2017, 03:39:43 PM
I'm planning on brewing a Blue Corn Cream Ale this weekend with Blue Corn Grits.  Recipe calls for 84% Base Malt of 4 lbs. 2 Row and 4 lbs. Pilsner.  I've always been told that when brewing with Pilsner Malt, 90 boil is need to get rid of that DMS.  My question is, being that it's only 4lbs, is 90 min boil really needed.  I'm also worried that the wort will become too caramelized and malty due to the 90 min. boil.  I appreciate anyone's help and advice.

I had always heard the same about the 90 minute boil for pilsner malt for the same purpose.  However, my experience with 60 minute boils with pilsner malt has proven otherwise.  I find 60 minutes to be sufficient and without any detriment to the beer, IMO.  Many other folks have had the same experience and come to the same conclusion as well.  I can, in good conscience, recommend a shorter 60 minute boil even when using 100% pilsner malt.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: denny on March 09, 2017, 05:05:44 PM
Coming from the hot rodding hobby, there's an old saying, "cheap, fast, and good: pick two." In my experience, that applies to not just speed parts, but brewing too. (ok, maybe replace "fast" with "easy".) Everything has trade offs, the question is do those trade off align with your goals?

The trade offs for a no-boil beer doesn't align with my goals, so I don't plan on trying. YMMV.

Until you try it how do you know there's a negative to the tradeoffs?
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: EnkAMania on March 09, 2017, 05:22:18 PM
I'm planning on brewing a Blue Corn Cream Ale this weekend with Blue Corn Grits.  Recipe calls for 84% Base Malt of 4 lbs. 2 Row and 4 lbs. Pilsner.  I've always been told that when brewing with Pilsner Malt, 90 boil is need to get rid of that DMS.  My question is, being that it's only 4lbs, is 90 min boil really needed.  I'm also worried that the wort will become too caramelized and malty due to the 90 min. boil.  I appreciate anyone's help and advice.

I had always heard the same about the 90 minute boil for pilsner malt for the same purpose.  However, my experience with 60 minute boils with pilsner malt has proven otherwise.  I find 60 minutes to be sufficient and without any detriment to the beer, IMO.  Many other folks have had the same experience and come to the same conclusion as well.  I can, in good conscience, recommend a shorter 60 minute boil even when using 100% pilsner malt.  Cheers!

Wish I would have read this before last Sunday.  I did my first 90 minute boil.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: stpug on March 09, 2017, 05:54:01 PM
I'm planning on brewing a Blue Corn Cream Ale this weekend with Blue Corn Grits.  Recipe calls for 84% Base Malt of 4 lbs. 2 Row and 4 lbs. Pilsner.  I've always been told that when brewing with Pilsner Malt, 90 boil is need to get rid of that DMS.  My question is, being that it's only 4lbs, is 90 min boil really needed.  I'm also worried that the wort will become too caramelized and malty due to the 90 min. boil.  I appreciate anyone's help and advice.

I had always heard the same about the 90 minute boil for pilsner malt for the same purpose.  However, my experience with 60 minute boils with pilsner malt has proven otherwise.  I find 60 minutes to be sufficient and without any detriment to the beer, IMO.  Many other folks have had the same experience and come to the same conclusion as well.  I can, in good conscience, recommend a shorter 60 minute boil even when using 100% pilsner malt.  Cheers!

Wish I would have read this before last Sunday.  I did my first 90 minute boil.

Well, there's certainly no harm in the longer boil, it just adds an extra 30 minutes to the brewday.  Depending on what you're end goal is, you may actually prefer the results from a 90 minute boil vs 60, but as it pertains to DMS (or it's precursors) then I've found 60 to be enough on my system with the malts I use.  At least you have a baseline from which to work now so the next time you brew this beer, if you decide to use a 60 minute boil instead, you have something to compare with, so it's still useful to have that experience.  At least, that's how I do/would look at it. Cheers!
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: stpug on March 09, 2017, 06:06:20 PM
Coming from the hot rodding hobby, there's an old saying, "cheap, fast, and good: pick two." In my experience, that applies to not just speed parts, but brewing too. (ok, maybe replace "fast" with "easy".) Everything has trade offs, the question is do those trade off align with your goals?

The trade offs for a no-boil beer doesn't align with my goals, so I don't plan on trying. YMMV.

Until you try it how do you know there's a negative to the tradeoffs?

Agreed.  Until you try it how else will you know what it has to offer, afterall the positives may outweigh the negatives
(this goes for low oxygen brewing as well hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge Denny).

I've tried two no boil (kettle soured) beers and did not like them much.  One was mediocre-okay (berliner) and I finished it, the other (gose) was poor enough that I dumped after about a gallon.  Overall, the impression I was left with was "too field-raw" and not "beery" enough (this is ignoring the sour aspect).  I will boil these style beers from now on when/if I make them again because I've had good berliner's and gose, none of which had this "too field-raw" character.

To bring this back to the original topic, my experience is that I prefer a beer that has been boiled for some number of minutes, but most do not need a 90 minute boil.  Sixty minute boils seem to be a very safe length for nearly every style of beer, from my perspective.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: denny on March 09, 2017, 06:08:25 PM
Agreed.  Until you try it how else will you know what it has to offer, afterall the positives may outweigh the negatives
(this goes for low oxygen brewing as well hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge Denny).

A very good point, but keep in mind that I don't contend that low oxygen brewing may not have advantages.  Simply that I'm unwilling to go through the process because it doesn't fit the way I like to brew.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: stpug on March 09, 2017, 06:17:45 PM
Agreed.  Until you try it how else will you know what it has to offer, afterall the positives may outweigh the negatives
(this goes for low oxygen brewing as well hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge Denny).

A very good point, but keep in mind that I don't contend that low oxygen brewing may not have advantages.  Simply that I'm unwilling to go through the process because it doesn't fit the way I like to brew.

I can understand that perspective for sure.  Kettle souring is a little bit of PITA too, and my results were not impressive, therefore I have no intentions of trying again anytime soon, but at least I tried and have my own experience from which to speak.

I'm intrigued with your 20 minute boil successes.  Once I can finish up getting a handle on the changes I've implemented over the past year, I will probably attempt a short boil like this.  I'm not dying to save time on my brewday, but that's a solid 40 minute savings (probably more since I'd be dealing with less overall water throughout the entire process, which should translate to extra minutes saved).
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: denny on March 09, 2017, 06:33:35 PM
Agreed.  Until you try it how else will you know what it has to offer, afterall the positives may outweigh the negatives
(this goes for low oxygen brewing as well hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge Denny).

A very good point, but keep in mind that I don't contend that low oxygen brewing may not have advantages.  Simply that I'm unwilling to go through the process because it doesn't fit the way I like to brew.

I can understand that perspective for sure.  Kettle souring is a little bit of PITA too, and my results were not impressive, therefore I have no intentions of trying again anytime soon, but at least I tried and have my own experience from which to speak.

I'm intrigued with your 20 minute boil successes.  Once I can finish up getting a handle on the changes I've implemented over the past year, I will probably attempt a short boil like this.  I'm not dying to save time on my brewday, but that's a solid 40 minute savings (probably more since I'd be dealing with less overall water throughout the entire process, which should translate to extra minutes saved).

Try a 20 min. mash to go with it!
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: Phil_M on March 09, 2017, 06:49:23 PM
Agreed.  Until you try it how else will you know what it has to offer, afterall the positives may outweigh the negatives
(this goes for low oxygen brewing as well hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge Denny).

A very good point, but keep in mind that I don't contend that low oxygen brewing may not have advantages.  Simply that I'm unwilling to go through the process because it doesn't fit the way I like to brew.

And that's kinda why I'm not interested in trying a no-boil beer. My current interests are historical British beers, and modern German lagers. With the former, longer seems to better, but I've got some more playing to do there. I've had my best results with 90 minute boils, as specified in the source recipes. 60 minutes hasn't worked as well, and although I've got a few more variables to play with it may just be where I stay for those styles. I haven't yet brewed enough lager to have any real data on what I think boil length does on my system, but IMO a no-boil German-style lager and a German lager are going to be two completely different things. Maybe the no-boil beer would be good to some, but that's not the beer in my head I'm trying to brew.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: denny on March 09, 2017, 06:59:52 PM
And that's kinda why I'm not interested in trying a no-boil beer. My current interests are historical British beers, and modern German lagers. With the former, longer seems to better, but I've got some more playing to do there. I've had my best results with 90 minute boils, as specified in the source recipes. 60 minutes hasn't worked as well, and although I've got a few more variables to play with it may just be where I stay for those styles. I haven't yet brewed enough lager to have any real data on what I think boil length does on my system, but IMO a no-boil German-style lager and a German lager are going to be two completely different things. Maybe the no-boil beer would be good to some, but that's not the beer in my head I'm trying to brew.

You may be right.  It may be better for some styles than others.  OTOH, it may work great for everything.  I have other experiments in progress, but I intend to try no boil.  Why? Because it subtracts from my brew day rather than adds to it.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: mabrungard on March 09, 2017, 09:59:58 PM
Well, there's certainly no harm in the longer boil, it just adds an extra 30 minutes to the brewday.  Depending on what you're end goal is, you may actually prefer the results from a 90 minute boil vs 60,

Well, there is that thiobarbituric acid increase from the extended boil. That is a staling precursor. But as you mention, it could be a welcome thing in some styles.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: bayareabrewer on March 09, 2017, 10:04:55 PM
Well, there's certainly no harm in the longer boil, it just adds an extra 30 minutes to the brewday.  Depending on what you're end goal is, you may actually prefer the results from a 90 minute boil vs 60,

Well, there is that thiobarbituric acid increase from the extended boil. That is a staling precursor. But as you mention, it could be a welcome thing in some styles.

is thisincrease a function of time, boil vigor or both? Would a 90 minute boil at 5%/hr evaporation rate produce less than a 60 minute boil with 15%/hr evaporation rate?
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: denny on March 09, 2017, 10:11:40 PM
Well, there is that thiobarbituric acid increase from the extended boil.

I just hate it when that happens....;)
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: stpug on March 09, 2017, 11:53:49 PM
Well, there's certainly no harm in the longer boil, it just adds an extra 30 minutes to the brewday.  Depending on what you're end goal is, you may actually prefer the results from a 90 minute boil vs 60,

Well, there is that thiobarbituric acid increase from the extended boil. That is a staling precursor. But as you mention, it could be a welcome thing in some styles.

Very good; thanks for sharing that nugget of information.  Without knowing more about it, I would say that's another excellent reason to keep boil length to some undetermined lower limit.  I've been happy with 60 minute boils when using pilsner malt (as well as other malts) so that's my typical length.  One of the reasons is that, from my experience, I feel as though the IBU bitterness formula estimates don't match my perception of the finished beer the closer I get to 0minutes, and for me it becomes a bit of a crap shoot at around 30 minute additions in terms of perceived bitterness in the finished beer versus the calculated value.  For some styles it seems to leave them with a different balance than I had intended.  I have a few recipes where I add the bittering addition at 45min remaining and it is perceived (by me) to the level of my expectations; but 60 is still my safe number for bittering additions :D.  In regards to a 20minute short boil, I'm not certain how I'd handle the bittering addition coupled with a 8% low vigor boiloff rate - double/triple the 60minute addition??  ???.  Nonetheless, thanks for the bit about thiobarbituric acid increase from extended boils.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: Phil_M on March 10, 2017, 01:06:47 AM
On the other hand, for styles that benefit from oxidation (I'm sold on low O2 brewing, I just don't believe it's appropriate for every style) a 90 minute boil might help...Doesn't Toby use an extended boil for his Scotch Ale? It'd certainly explain why I've seemed to have better luck with longer boils with British styles. (Real ale must be slightly oxidized almost by definition.)
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: Joe Sr. on March 10, 2017, 02:03:09 AM
On the other hand, for styles that benefit from oxidation (I'm sold on low O2 brewing, I just don't believe it's appropriate for every style) a 90 minute boil might help...Doesn't Toby use an extended boil for his Scotch Ale? It'd certainly explain why I've seemed to have better luck with longer boils with British styles. (Real ale must be slightly oxidized almost by definition.)
Yes. Toby does a long boil for his wee heavy.  I was impressed with the results and just recently did a 90 minute boil for my old ale (which admittedly is not necessarily to bjcp style guidelines).
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: coolman26 on March 11, 2017, 02:02:30 PM
I now do reduced boil-off. I have been doing 90 min mashes, and 90 min boils. My beers are the best I've ever made, not saying much. Is it because I moved to 90/90, or is it just getting better at the process?  I would love to cut an hour from brew day. I think I will go 90/60 on my RIS I plan to brew tomorrow. I doubt 90 min boil is needed. Now people are covering their BK with reduced boil-off.  Lots of great tests and changes going on. Glad everyone comes here to share experiences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: The Beerery on March 11, 2017, 02:56:42 PM
Weird where have I seen TBI brought up before?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: erockrph on March 12, 2017, 12:33:16 AM
I've done a few no boil extract IPAs where I've just heated the wort to whirlpool temps. The results were just fine - as good as any other extract IPA using a normal boil that I've brewed.

I have a Berliner Weisse that is almost ready that uses an even simpler method. I fill my fermentation keg with hot tap water, add wheat DME, pitch lacto, and let the sour fermentation go. I did a short 15 minute boil to kill the bugs and add a small amount of IBUs, then chilled and pitched Sacc.

I don't think that this would work for every style, but it does have a place for some brewers and styles. I might try an extract and dry hop IPA with no heat at all sometime soon just for the heck of it.
Title: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: PharmBrewer on April 22, 2017, 09:33:46 PM
I do routinely do a 5L 20 minute mash, 20 minute boil with no problems.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: PharmBrewer on April 22, 2017, 09:36:53 PM
I do routinely do a 5L 20 minute mash, 20 minute boil with no problems.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Just have to compensate for about a 60 % brewhouse efficiency.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: HoosierBrew on April 22, 2017, 09:49:25 PM
Nothing over 60 mins for me, including beers with high % pils malt.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: natebrews on April 22, 2017, 09:53:31 PM
Everything is 60 min for me too.  95% pils, no problem. 
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: brewinhard on April 23, 2017, 07:18:51 PM
Everything is 60 min for me too.  95% pils, no problem.

+1.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: coolman26 on April 23, 2017, 09:52:24 PM
I've been boiling 90 minutes. I went to a much less aggressive boil. My evaporation is about 8%. Maybe all I need is 60, guess I need to try it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: santoch on April 25, 2017, 04:37:29 AM
I tend to boil 60 + whatever it took to hit hot break.  That usually works out to about 75 mins from first runnings hitting the boil kettle until flame out.

Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: ynotbrusum on April 25, 2017, 11:49:44 AM
The whole calculation issues in the reduced temperature (substituted "boil")/reduced mash time approach seem daunting to me.  Differences (if any) in evaporation rate, IBU's, conversion, etc...would mean a major shift to me and I am just getting my new system down (BIAB - single vessel electric).  So it will be a while before I try that approach whole hog.  I'm not saying it doesn't merit it for those who are more in tune with the calculations, but I have to dial things in better before trying it. Very interesting discussion for sure.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: Phil_M on April 25, 2017, 12:47:17 PM
I'm on the fence about sorter boil times. Like everything else in brewing, it depends on what your goals are.

For your average beer, I don't boil longer than 60 minutes, and I could see how some may be able to get down to a shorter boil time.

However, I once brewed a beer that was on the fence between being a pale mild or a bitter. Using a Ron Pattinson recipe, I boiled for a whopping three hours. The resultant beer had a noticeable caramel flavor, despite not having any crystal malt. (Just MO, flaked barley, and invert) While I haven't played around with the variables to try and nail down if it was the invert or the boil length (or both), I think it's worth stating that certain styles may require longer boils.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: coolman26 on April 25, 2017, 02:13:41 PM
The whole calculation issues in the reduced temperature (substituted "boil")/reduced mash time approach seem daunting to me.  Differences (if any) in evaporation rate, IBU's, conversion, etc...would mean a major shift to me and I am just getting my new system down (BIAB - single vessel electric).  So it will be a while before I try that approach whole hog.  I'm not saying it doesn't merit it for those who are more in tune with the calculations, but I have to dial things in better before trying it. Very interesting discussion for sure.
I see your points. When I moved to fly sparging it was an entirely new process to iron out. I'm reluctant to change any processes. I just ordered all the stainless for my new manifold to rid myself of the copper. I'm also going to make a DIY stainless CFC. I'm not sure why everyone quit selling the stainless CFC chillers. I'm making the best beer I've ever made, so I'm not sure I even care about the time saving changes. I am going to make the BIAB for my old 10gal kettle. Maybe those small batches will be a good place to experiment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: ultravista on April 27, 2017, 02:02:39 PM
Let's talk 30 minute boil ... using hop extract, the need to boil for bittering is gone.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: denny on April 27, 2017, 02:21:46 PM
Let's talk 30 minute boil ... using hop extract, the need to boil for bittering is gone.

I've done 20 min. boils.  You just increase your bittering hops by 50%.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: PharmBrewer on April 27, 2017, 10:57:21 PM
Let's talk 30 minute boil ... using hop extract, the need to boil for bittering is gone.

I've done 20 min. boils.  You just increase your bittering hops by 50%.
Agreed.  That is my experience as well.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: erockrph on April 28, 2017, 12:49:03 AM
Let's talk 30 minute boil ... using hop extract, the need to boil for bittering is gone.
That's only true if you have iso-AA extract. Extracts like hop shot still need to be boiled to isomerize the alpha acids.

Frankly, if you're pushing the late hops, then you can get all your IBUs from 15 minute or even whirlpool additions.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: bayareabrewer on April 28, 2017, 06:41:22 PM
Let's talk 30 minute boil ... using hop extract, the need to boil for bittering is gone.

I've done 20 min. boils.  You just increase your bittering hops by 50%.

whats your boil off % for those 20 minute boils?
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: denny on April 28, 2017, 06:45:46 PM
Let's talk 30 minute boil ... using hop extract, the need to boil for bittering is gone.

I've done 20 min. boils.  You just increase your bittering hops by 50%.

whats your boil off % for those 20 minute boils?

Don't recall without checking, but not much as you'd expect.  Particularly since I was doing it indoors on an induction plate.
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: bayareabrewer on April 28, 2017, 06:55:57 PM
Let's talk 30 minute boil ... using hop extract, the need to boil for bittering is gone.

I've done 20 min. boils.  You just increase your bittering hops by 50%.

whats your boil off % for those 20 minute boils?

Don't recall without checking, but not much as you'd expect.  Particularly since I was doing it indoors on an induction plate.

wild. and no dms?

 
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: zwiller on April 28, 2017, 07:03:45 PM
I averaged 15-20% outdoors on 60m and 30m I get half that.  WRT comparing 30m vs 60m IBU, there is surprisingly little difference.  Honestly, I think we're talking like 10-20% change.  No need to resort to use ISO oil.  WRT DMS; Our boiloff rates are HUGE compared to pros.  They average 4% over 90m.  That's the reason they boil so long, they HAVE to.     
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: denny on April 28, 2017, 09:24:35 PM
Let's talk 30 minute boil ... using hop extract, the need to boil for bittering is gone.

I've done 20 min. boils.  You just increase your bittering hops by 50%.

whats your boil off % for those 20 minute boils?

Don't recall without checking, but not much as you'd expect.  Particularly since I was doing it indoors on an induction plate.

wild. and no dms?

None whatsoever
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: Steve Ruch on April 29, 2017, 03:40:11 PM

Don't recall without checking, but not much as you'd expect.  Particularly since I was doing it indoors on an induction plate.
[/quote]

Details please. What size batch? How long did it take to get to get to a boil? How did it compare to boiling outdoors with propane?
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: denny on April 29, 2017, 04:05:50 PM

Don't recall without checking, but not much as you'd expect.  Particularly since I was doing it indoors on an induction plate.

Details please. What size batch? How long did it take to get to get to a boil? How did it compare to boiling outdoors with propane?
[/quote]

2 gal., 1800W plate.  Started with maybe 2.5 gal. (I'd have top check my notes to be sure).  Maybe 20 min. to get to boil...don't recall exactly.  Best I could get was a low rolling boil, but that was enough. 
Title: Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
Post by: Nathan on June 05, 2017, 09:06:47 PM
Perhaps because the genesis of brewing back in Mesapotamia was changing. Contaminated water into a safe tasty beverage through boiling


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk