60 or 90

[JammyBStard]

I'm sure this has been asked before; but why boil 90min insted of 60min?
Obviosly you can concentrate the sugars further; but does it make any other difference?

[trucker5774]

You're right...............debated many times. 60 is enough, 90 will give slightly more hop utilisation and more evaporation. I do 75!

[leedsbrew]

I find I get a better cold break with a 90 min boil. I think it's personal preferences and what suits your set up really though!


LB

[dave-o]

I have had problems with cloudiness on 60 minute boils.

[steve_flack]

I haven't so that's why I stick to 60

[Jerry Cornelius]

I haven't so that's why I stick to 60

I've never tried 60; what's the vigour of your boil like? If I were to try 60 min, would you recommend a full, vigorous boil for 60 min, or turn it down once the rolling boil is achieved? I have two 2.4 kW elements on my kettle.

[boingy]

I've always done 90, just out of habit, but I am planning to try a couple of brews at 60 to see if there is any difference.

Trucker, I love the 75. Kinda the Lib Dem solution ( )

[raiderman]

I boil for 60m and I get no problems with cloudiness. I see no point in extending the boil time

In terms of vigour everything I have ever read suggests a vigorous boil and the tea urn I use certainly delivers that, but previous equipment has varied between a gentle boil and one thermostat I had gave 30 sec of boil followed by a period of doing nothing until tripping and boiling again. In theory they should have been less good, because neither were anywhere near vigorous but the beers produced were just as good.

[Jerry Cornelius]

For those that boil for 60 min and still get good clarity, how long do you mash for? I have to say that when I brew I set aside a whole day and shortening that day by an hour, mashing/boiling for 60 min each doesn't really gain me anything - I've got all day with nothing else to do - except perhaps get down the pub a little earlier... On the other hand if there's little point, perhaps it's worth a go.

[dave-o]

Trucker, I love the 75. Kinda the Lib Dem solution ( )

Wouldn't that be saying you're going to do a 30 minute brew and then actually doing a 90 min?

[Fallen]

I've tried both and haven't noticed any difference in the final product.

[gnorwebthgimi]

I do 60 minutes both mash and boil for standard beers.

Never had any DMS issues, always had enough (or too much) hop alpha acid conversion.

Get clear beer every time with whirlfloc.

[booldawg]

I've recently changed from 90 min to 60 min for both mash and boil.

The biggest difference is the boil. I'm looking to extract most my IBUs from 30 mins on. Bit spendy on the hops but you really notice individual charachter rather than a generic 'bitterness' that I used to get. Much fresher on the hops front.

Having said that I do chuck in hops at 60 mins, but in a 45 IBU brew I'm only looking for about 15-20 of the IBUs at that stage.

[Spud395]

60/60 for me, recently visisted my favourite micro and these guys are doing a 90 mash and 60 boil

[steve_flack]

I haven't so that's why I stick to 60

I've never tried 60; what's the vigour of your boil like? If I were to try 60 min, would you recommend a full, vigorous boil for 60 min, or turn it down once the rolling boil is achieved? I have two 2.4 kW elements on my kettle.

I boil 44L litres and use a kettle with 2x3kW elements. I only use one for the boil. It's not a raging boil but more than a simmer. I lose about 10% per hour in evaporation which is about the amount to aim for.

I also mash for 60 minutes. As I brew in the evening, an hour saved is an hour earlier in bed.