The 60 vs. 90 minute boil has been debated probably ever since wort was first boiled. I know there are a number of threads on here and all over the internet debating this very topic, but they all lack mostly one thing: first hand personal experiences.
Their are a few good reasons for a 90 minute boil but i'm really talking about the one compelling reason everyone says you need to do a 90 minute boil for lighter grains especially pilsner malt -- DMS. At least boiling off DMS precursors. But times are changing just like our brewing ingredients. Our knowledge expands and our techniques get tweaked. What are your personal experiences boiling for only 60 minutes using light colored grains especially pilsner malt?
I've done both and have not noticed anything difference between the two except for perhaps some slight caramelization with the 90 minute boil. For what it is worth, I have yet to use pilsner malt, and don't see myself ever, either. I also do not brew low-gravity beers; so as long as the OG is medium-to-high, the kettle is uncovered, and the boil is vigorous enough to lend at a minimum 8% loss to vapor, DMS levels should remain at a "reasonable" level.
Keep in mind that some DMS is a part of the lager profile.
A longer boil can also raise a thin wort to its target SG.
I haven't done a double-blind experiment, so there's the bias of knowing, but I think that the longer boil gives more layered, complex flavors.
Caramelization and perhaps Maillard reactions, which can create hundreds of individual flavors depending on length of reaction time. However, I am not sure how much of this is going down at 90 minutes, but surely more than with a 60 minute boil it is happening. Keep in mind that caramelization and the "browning" Maillard reactions are two different things.
Do y'all mash longer?? 60 min vs 90 min. Does that have an effect???
Yes. I have been doing 100% step-mashes over the last few years including triple decoctions (which can turn a 60 minute mash into a four hour event).
as long as you have complete conversion the 90 min is excessive. with the modern modified malts 60 min. is plenty. To be honest you probably could get away with a 30 min. mash with today's malts, but I have never tested this theory.
Perhaps this is a topic deserving of its own thread, but...
...whenever a debate over brewing technique arises the concept of "
todays well modified modern malts" invariably comes up. For what it is worth, modern well-modified malts go back at least four decades. What has changed is the amount of specialty malts that have risen since, allowing [home]brewers to shorten the amount of time need spent per batch.
There are members of this forum who claim they get great results with only a 30 minute mash, but did you mean a 30 minute boil?
