Boil Times 60-90 Minutes.

[mikec]

Boiling? Waste of time. You're all doing it the hard way.

Straight from mash tun to fermenter, add yeast and dry hop.

So simple.

Volume calculations are easy - no boil-off.
No messing about with hot wort.
No caramelisation.
Saves heaps of time. I can knock out 8 to 10 brews in a day.

Tastes fine to me. Even better than VB down the pub.

 

[Fourstar]

Based on the amount of SMM precursor residual in most modern day malts, the DMS produced and driven off in the boil and fermentation you will find in most instances the residual DMS is just shy of the average sniffers threshold.

Based on this, majority of worts will suffice with a 60 minute boil. Taking it to 90 minutes you are lucky to move the reduction of the DMS level in your finished product by another 1% (IIRC). Lightly kilned malts (this does not include pale ale/lager malts) and closely followed with under-modification are more likely to have a higher SMM precursor count.

When would you really want to do a 90 min boil? Uber light pilsner malts and malts with higher protein levels or SMM precursor such as 6 Row malt. IMO these are the only times you should typically be concerned with residual DMS and the potential for it to be higher than threshold levels. Oh and using Polenta.

With that extra 30 mins you're wasting your time/energy if your beers don't exhibit DMS after 60 min boils (with or without rapid chilling). By boiling your wort for 90 minutes you're not only converting/driving off SMM/DMS but you're causing other critical changes to your wort as well. Increasing the malliard reaction in your light delicate pilsners by 33% for example. Food for thought.

After reading Mr Fix, I'm more inclined to believe most peoples perception of DMS in their beers is likely to be from infections over SMM/DMS conversion. Especially given our wort colling rates compared with that of commercial volumes.

 

[hsb]

You're disregarding MHB's informative post on the other reasons for boiling wort from Page 1 of this thread.
http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...st&p=923464

Classic HB 6 to 1 half a dozen to the other debate really. (is there any other?)

 

[drsmurto]

<SNIP>

After reading Mr Fix, I'm more inclined to believe most peoples perception of DMS in their beers is likely to be from infections over SMM/DMS conversion. Especially given our wort colling rates compared with that of commercial volumes.

As you point out, SMM from the grain is unlikely to be the source of DMS in finished beer.

Rather than an infection, in my opinion, it is likely due to a unhealthy yeast population.

Yeast (s. cerevisiae) convert sulphate, via the sulphate reduction pathway, to sulphite, through to sulphide which is then converted into the sulphur containing amino acids, cysteine and methionine. S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) is capable of methylating the methione (with the assistance of a methyltransferase enzyme) to produce.... wait for it.... S-methylmethionine.

When everything is 'normal' the cysteine and methionine is metabolised by the yeast. It's only when the yeast is stressed by something that the regular pathways change.

 

[Nick JD]

When the experts disagree we can be sure that it's not a very cut and dried subject.

In times like these I prefer to listen to my own results - I only get "corny" flavours from one base malt. That's an easy fix.

To all those contemplating shifting to 90 minute boils should wait till the experts have finished being right, and then continue doing what works for them.

 

[MHB]

I think 4Star might be exaggerating a little with the 33%. Taking the pre and post boil colours for Weyermann Pilsner (3.5-5.5).View attachment 55213
Given that that is measured over a two hour boil and that colour development is fairly linear, gives 4.5 and 5.0 EBC for 60 and 90 minute boils respectively; so 10% more colour development is more like the answer. The trade off being less protein to be removed in lagering and less polyphenols that can really stand out in a delicate beer
There isnt a right answer, for fun some time look at the recipe for Kindl Weisse a 15 minute boil doesnt seem adequate but in this beer it works.
Mark

 

[hamstringsally]

Im about to put down a pale ale this weekend with a volume of 125l. its the second time im going to run the bigger system and always done a 60 min boil with my smaller system. My OG reading was low on my last bigger brew so was going to boil for 90 min this weekend to bring to OG up. so its good to see what everyone has to say!

 

[Fourstar]

You're disregarding MHB's informative post on the other reasons for boiling wort from Page 1 of this thread.
http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...st&p=923464

Classic HB 6 to 1 half a dozen to the other debate really. (is there any other?)

Im not disregarding anything regarding MHB's post. I agree entirely with all of his statements so far. I was covering an angle for boiling 90 minutes purely to reduce DMS and not taking into account any other variables (as majority of homebrewers get told boil for 90 mins to reduce DMS and they go ahead and blindly do it.) If you are boiling for 90 mins just to reduce DMS, in majority of situations you're wasting your time. If you are doing it to reduce DMS and take advantage if things as suggested by MHB, thats great! Just as long as you account for any drawbacks assoicated with boiling for 90 minutes of course.

I think 4Star might be exaggerating a little with the 33%. Taking the pre and post boil colours for Weyermann Pilsner (3.5-5.5).View attachment 55213

Indeed i was. All things considered we would be assuming a correct wort pH as well. As we know, an increase in wort pH (e.g. high carbonate water profile leading to high boil pH, more so igorant carbonate additions to the kettle) we could see significant colour increase based over that 30 min period.

As you point out, SMM from the grain is unlikely to be the source of DMS in finished beer.
Rather than an infection, in my opinion, it is likely due to a unhealthy yeast population.

<science drabble that most dont understand>

Exacta-mundo! ^_^

 

[manticle]

75-90, sometimes a bit longer but the boil with added hops is only ever 60.

Stux - I know the fresh corn (fresh uncooked corn) flavour Nick is talking about with the wey floor malted pils and I have tasted the exact same flavour in two other beers that both used mostly/all the wey FM pils.

Somewhere in Principles of Brewing Science, Fix talks about different melanoidens (not all have the same flavour) and relates a fresh, uncooked corn flavour to one of those (and distinguishes it from sulphur compounds and their resultant flavours).

 

[Rowy]

75-90, sometimes a bit longer but the boil with added hops is only ever 60.

Stux - I know the fresh corn (fresh uncooked corn) flavour Nick is talking about with the wey floor malted pils and I have tasted the exact same flavour in two other beers that both used mostly/all the wey FM pils.

Somewhere in Principles of Brewing Science, Fix talks about different melanoidens (not all have the same flavour) and relates a fresh, uncooked corn flavour to one of those (and distinguishes it from sulphur compounds and their resultant flavours).

And there speaketh the Oracle :icon_cheers:

 

[MHB]

I have said it before but it bears repeating Everything you do affects the beer
In no way am I disagreeing with either DrS or 4Star, there isnt a right answer to the question how long should everyone boil their beer. In various beers I boil from 15 to 180 minutes and in each case based on the beer I am brewing the answer will be right for that beer.
Conversely there are lots of wrong answers in brewing trying to make Lager in high carbonate water might just fall into that category, adding carbonate to the kettle definitely would.
Mark

 

[Thirsty Boy]

Whichever you choose - you're going to make your life easier if you just take one boil time and stick to it. You will know when things arre going normally, when things are going wrong and genally eliminate a variable from your brew day.

I choose 90min boils - because it works with my process, because of the hop/break interaction thats been mentioned a few times already, because i want excellent break formation and because of DMS. If DMS from malt can be a problem, a 90min boil will likely fix it and a 60min boil might not (especially if you are no-chilling)... so i choose 90.

Downsides?? Minimal. You use more energy and it takes 30min longer. It makes your beer darker, a teeny tiny little bit darker. I've made a number of pilsners that were boiled for 120mins and then no-chilled. They were still easily inside the colour range you'd expect from a pils. If you are desperate for a very light straw colured beer, OK, otherwise its pretty much a non issue. Pilsner Urquell does a triple decoction and then boils for 120mins.... and its not exactly uncontrollably dark.

Decide what seems right for you, your system and the way you like to brew. Make sure it works - then stick with it. The "downside" of either a 60 or a 90min boil is unlikely to be significant enough to warrant a change that will make your life harder than you'd like it to be.

TB

 

[manticle]

And there speaketh the Oracle :icon_cheers:

Presumably you mean George Fix?

 

[Rowy]

Presumably you mean George Fix?

Your the Oracle Manticle

 

[manticle]

Thanks but I'm just a bloke who reads a bit and brews a bit and craps on a lot about it all to anyone who will listen.

I get ideas from reading, test them, form an opinion. I'm a homebrewer with access to the internet.

There's others I'd be seeing as oracles long before me.

You can still buy me a pint when I'm up your way though*.

*Unless you're being sarcastic, in which case you can buy me 4 pints.

 

[Rowy]

Thanks but I'm just a bloke who reads a bit and brews a bit and craps on a lot about it all to anyone who will listen.

I get ideas from reading, test them, form an opinion. I'm a homebrewer with access to the internet.

There's others I'd be seeing as oracles long before me.

You can still buy me a pint when I'm up your way though*.

*Unless you're being sarcastic, in which case you can buy me 4 pints.

Not being sarcastic at all mate. Just value some of the advice you have given me and others.....be more than happy to shout you a pint or two if your ever up this way.

 

[manticle]

I'll settle for two pints then.

 

[rotten]

Big hugs


I boil for 90 mins when using marris otter, otherwise I boil for 70ish until hot break has settled-boiled off. Great input earlier guys.

 

[Nick JD]

Stux - I know the fresh corn (fresh uncooked corn) flavour Nick is talking about with the wey floor malted pils and I have tasted the exact same flavour in two other beers that both used mostly/all the wey FM pils.

Somewhere in Principles of Brewing Science, Fix talks about different melanoidens (not all have the same flavour) and relates a fresh, uncooked corn flavour to one of those (and distinguishes it from sulphur compounds and their resultant flavours).

I've been tryng to tell the self-appointed "experts" this for ages. They always resort to "infection" calls. Axes to grind.

 

[MHB]

No axe to grind, just Weyermann Floor Malted Pilsner is one of my favourite malts and I have no trouble with it.
Difference is Im not trying to blame the malt for my inability to make good beer with it. Being floor malted it requires different treatment both during mashing, boiling and to some extent during fermentation and post fermentation treatment.
Mark