60 v 90 minute boil?

[JDC]

Hi all, I did a search on this topic on the forum and the last reference I could find was March 2015. Therefore, I thought I would raise it again. I always wonder whether to do a 60 or 90 minute boil. From what I can see, 60 is the norm unless you're using a pilsner/lager malt in which case do 90.

Is this the case? Thoughts and/or reasons? Cheers.

[brian_c]

Check out Brulosophy.com, they've done a few experiments in boil length that pretty much showed that it didn't matter.

Here's one experiment

http://brulosophy.com/2015/03/11/the-impact-of-boil-length-ale-exbeeriment-results/

Sent from my TA-1012 using Tapatalk

[DEMPSEY]

apart from lager brewing issues the only teal reason I can see for longer boils is to reduce the volumn of wort. It can also caramelize the wort too.

[DEMPSEY]

Boiling as you know is to sterilize the wort and kill the Amylase after they have done all the work. I feel like Joseph Stalin when I think of what I do to the workers.

[Slev]

Coincidentally, I did a brew today with only a 20 min boil. Am giving the short and shoddy method for a hoppy pilsner a go. Am fermenting it at 19c with wlp833. Was a 100% pilsner malt. ( was a late call on having something for Christmas, to suit lager drinker, so reckoned it was a good opportunity to trial). Will report back on how it turns out.

[nigel_c]

Longer boils will also give color and caramization for the wort.

[mick02]

If you're using lots of pilsner malt in your grist then a longer boil will help drive off the DMS. Pilsner contains more SMM (precursor to DMS) than Pale Malt hence the extra boiling time.

[Slev]

If you're using lots of pilsner malt in your grist then a longer boil will help drive off the DMS. Pilsner contains more SMM (precursor to DMS) than Pale Malt hence the extra boiling time.

Yep. Thats the thing. Will be interesting to see if I have off flavours. 20 min boil and warm fermentation (and maybe under pitching - used 1 pure pitch without starter in 13l at 1.050)... So if there are off flavours, may be hard to pin down the cause. (not sure I'd be able to recognise DMS flavour anyway)

[nigel_c]

I did a kettle sour a while back with pils as the majority of the base malt. Only gave it a 15 mom boil and there was noticing dms in the finished product.

[Slev]

I did a kettle sour a while back with pils as the majority of the base malt. Only gave it a 15 mom boil and there was noticing dms in the finished product.

As in - noticeable DMS?  (or no DMS - auto type striking again)?

[JDC]

Thanks all - a bit more reading on the topic for me to be done so, but reckon I'll stick to the 60 for Ales/Stouts and 90 for lagers for the time-being.  Was in the middle of brewing my first ever Weissbier when the question jumped into my head - went with 90 for that.

[nigel_c]

Sorry my bad.
Yes dms was noticeable in the final beer.

[Qs]

Modern pils malt is apparently just as modified as the ale malt and shouldn't throw off any extra DMS. I still do 90 minute boils on lagers though, just in case. I've also read that the Weyermann floor malted bo-pils malt is one of the few still under modified, so if you are using that be extra careful and do a 90 minute boil.

[nigel_c]

It was floor malted pilsner was using.

[Hop Bomb]

Modern pils malt is apparently just as modified as the ale malt and shouldn't throw off any extra DMS. I still do 90 minute boils on lagers though, just in case. I've also read that the Weyermann floor malted bo-pils malt is one of the few still under modified, so if you are using that be extra careful and do a 90 minute boil.

UK & Irish "Lager Malt" is well modified. Its just extra pale ale malt & only requires 60 min boil. Its not pilsner malt!  I use Best Malz pils mostly, Weyermann pils & Castle pils the odd time & you can smell it in the run off.  I always do a 90 min vigorous boil on actual Pilsner malt.  (slight tangent but i could never get my head around those 3 day souring no boil berliners - bet they're all stinky wet ham murk bombs?)