# Difference Between 60 And 90 Min Boil Time



## Diggles (11/9/12)

Has anyone found any marked difference between a 60 and a 90 min boil? I'm thinking of doing back to back batches as it should only add about 60 mins to the total time, depending on the boil time. Chilling the wort may be problematic with only the one Kettle!

Diggles


----------



## Rowy (11/9/12)

Bunker down troops here's an argument about to start!


----------



## glenwal (11/9/12)

Diggles said:


> Has anyone found any marked difference between a 60 and a 90 min boil? I'm thinking of doing back to back batches as it should only add about 60 mins to the total time, depending on the boil time. Chilling the wort may be problematic with only the one Kettle!
> 
> Diggles



I find 60 minute boil is about 30 mins quicker than a 90  

there is some pretty good answers in this thread though.


----------



## jakethesnake559 (11/9/12)

I had a similar question on a different forum and got this back...good reading.
Would be interested in some real world results.

Cheers,
Jake. 

View attachment The_function_of_wort_boiling1.pdf


----------



## Thirsty Boy (13/9/12)

vs a 60min boil a 90min boil will:

*Naturally enough - evaporate more liquid. This might result in an increase in your mash/lauter efficiency, because to get the extra liquid, you'll probably sparge a bit more. Maybe a good thing, maybe not

*Darken your wort - not a lot, but noticeably. Perhaps a bad thing if you are trying to make a very pale delicate lager. Flavourwise, the darkening means more melanoidins and related products, which might make your beer taste a little maltier - but with just a 30min increase, its going to be a pretty damn subtle difference.

*Allow you to extract a small amount of extra bitterness from your hops

*Get rid of more DMS. There wont be too many beers where 90mins isn't more than enough to drop DMS levels by a sufficient amount, even for no-chilling. There will be the occasional time when 60mins isn't enough.

*Cost you %50 more for gas or electricity than otherwise it would

*Cost you 30mins of your valuable time

I personally always boil for 90mins. Mainly because it gives me consistency of process. I'll sometimes "need" to boil for 90mins, so if I usually boil for 60, i the have to learn how my system works for two boil lengths.... I am lazy, so I boil for 90min _every_ time and only have to learn once.

I also find it allows me consistency of product - I boil for 90min, but only add hops at the 60min mark. That gives me a full 30min to have taken a sample, just at the very start of the boil, cooled it, checked to see if my gravity was what I was expecting, worked out what impact any discrepancy might have, and what i might like to do about it. add water, boil for longer, add malt extract, add sugar, adjust my hopping - all before hops have gone in and removed any of my options. Plus as a bonus, the vast majority of my hot break has happened before the hops go in, which makes the utilization more consistent - its a small variable in the scale of things, but one that is largely removed by a 90min boil.

I dont think a 90min boil is "better" in and of itself - but i do find that a 90min boil allows techniques that help my brewing to be more consistent in terms of process and results - so its better for me in my brewery. YMMV.

TB


----------



## Sunshine_Brewer (13/9/12)

As much as it pains me on brew day I always do a 90min boil. To me it is one of those steps that I can't skip as I know there could be issues (DMS) with a shorter boil. It is Mainly an issue with European malts I think.


----------



## Batz (13/9/12)

Rowy said:


> Bunker down troops here's an argument about to start!




Yep, a fair question Diggles. 





Batz


----------



## real_beer (13/9/12)

Diggles said:


> Has anyone found any marked difference between a 60 and a 90 min boil? I'm thinking of doing back to back batches as it should only add about 60 mins to the total time, depending on the boil time. Chilling the wort may be problematic with only the one Kettle!
> 
> Diggles


90 - 60 = 30

I work it out to 30 mins, hope that helps.


----------



## Mantis (13/9/12)

Takes longer


----------



## mika (13/9/12)

Thirsty Boy said:


> I personally always boil for 90mins. Mainly because it gives me consistency of process. I'll sometimes "need" to boil for 90mins, so if I usually boil for 60, i the have to learn how my system works for two boil lengths.... I am lazy, so I boil for 90min _every_ time and only have to learn once.



This.


----------



## Barley Belly (13/9/12)

Don't ask me why but I've always done 75 min mashes and 75 min boils, dunna why?????????????????????

Kind of a foot in both camps I suppose.

Always done the job for me


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I (14/9/12)

Been doing 90m boils for a while now. It allows me to sparge extra like TB said, and as also mentioned, it's about consistency.

Doesn't seem to make the brew day longer, either.


----------



## mmmyummybeer (14/9/12)

For me it depends on the grain bill. I remember reading somewhere that its good to do a 90 minute boil with pilsner malt as it has more DMS.


----------



## iJosh (14/9/12)

My last brew broke all the rules  

I was really strapped for time so I did a ~25L 'Overnight No-chill In The Urn eBIAB SMaSH'. Say that quickly!  

I used Munich I malt and Galaxy hops, mashed for ~30mins @ 68C, ~10min mashout while ramping up to boil, pulled and squeezed bag, ~30min boil, and all 'boil' hops (60g) added at flame out with a good whirlpooling action to break up the pellets and distribute the goodness. OG was 1046, 2 points above my expected OG. I just finished dryhopping yesterday with 50g of Galaxy and will keg/bottle this weekend. 

FG sample tasted great with no signs of the scary results often expected with this type of non-standard brewing process. Obviously I'll wait for the final product to make my definitive call, but if this works I might employ the techniques more often as it saved me a heap of time!

Was a ficken hoppy sample BTW, a real smack in the chops! In a good way


----------



## Phoney (14/9/12)

mmmyummybeer said:


> For me it depends on the grain bill. I remember reading somewhere that its good to do a 90 minute boil with pilsner malt as it has more DMS.



+1. Also for good quality floor malted malts like MO.

If im knocking out a simple APA with joe white or powells ale malt and im doing it on a weeknight when it's cold outside and I want it over and done with as quickly as possible, then a 60 min mash & boil is the go.


----------



## Dave70 (20/9/12)

If the recipe calls for a 90minute boil and I'm pressed for time, I simply boil two thirds harder and stop at thirty. 
Its a real time saver.


----------

