What is the difference between a 60 minute boil and a 90 minute one?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Beer Viking

Beer Viking

Beer Lover
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
205
Reaction score
95
Location
BC, Canada
Just wondering how different things will be between a 60 minute boil and a 90 minute one? When making a recipe what makes you choose to boil the wort for 60 or 90 minutes?
 
I know color is a big factor on older styles like barleywine. I learned fairly recently that historical barleywines really only used pale malts but were boiled down for so long that the color darkened up. (Though this is usually boiling for hours not 90 minutes)
 
Joeywhat said:
Pilsner malt typically requires a longer boil to reduce DMS.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't hang my hat on this often repeated "rule of thumb". There's been a lot of work done to show that modern malt doesn't experience this effect as much as everyone claims it does as a result of shorter boils. The bigger factor in the DMS precursor production is boiling with the kettle lid on. Boil for 30min and crack that lid, you'll be golden.

That said, the main reasons for boiling longer:
  • Certain desired hop profile - maybe boiling hops for 90min packs in a certain desired profile.
  • Reduction of volume - maybe too much wort was generated and volume needed to be reduced
  • Increase of gravity - similar to the reduction of volume (however this is easily balanced by adding DME or sugars)
  • Certain desired flavor profile - boiling longer produces more complex flavors. It's not necessarily caramelization or the Malliard reaction taking place, since the temps aren't high enough, but it still affects the flavor nonetheless.
  • Darkening of color without addition of other grains
For me, the only time i'm boiling 90min rather than 60min is when I've sparged enough to generate enough wort that i need to reduce an additional 1/2 gallon (my boil-off rate is ~1gal/hr). Even then, i'll boil for 90min, but start hop additions at 60min.
 
cactusgarrett said:
I wouldn't hang my hat on this often repeated "rule of thumb". There's been a lot of work done to show that modern malt doesn't experience this effect as much as everyone claims it does as a result of shorter boils. The bigger factor in the DMS precursor production is boiling with the kettle lid on. Boil for 30min and crack that lid, you'll be golden.

That said, the main reasons for boiling longer:
  • Certain desired hop profile - maybe boiling hops for 90min packs in a certain desired profile.
  • Reduction of volume - maybe too much wort was generated and volume needed to be reduced
  • Increase of gravity - similar to the reduction of volume (however this is easily balanced by adding DME or sugars)
  • Certain desired flavor profile - boiling longer produces more complex flavors. It's not necessarily caramelization or the Malliard reaction taking place, since the temps aren't high enough, but it still affects the flavor nonetheless.
  • Darkening of color without addition of other grains
For me, the only time i'm boiling 90min rather than 60min is when I've sparged enough to generate enough wort that i need to reduce an additional 1/2 gallon (my boil-off rate is ~1gal/hr). Even then, i'll boil for 90min, but start hop additions at 60min.
Click to expand...

I see so many recipes made mostly with pilsner malt that have 60 minute boil times. Should they be 90 if they are made with mostly pilsner malt?
 
Beer Viking said:
I see so many recipes made mostly with pilsner malt that have 60 minute boil times. Should they be 90 if they are made with mostly pilsner malt?
Click to expand...

not really, most modern malts wont have this issue. I think its more of a under modified malt deal. like a floor malted old variety. a longer boil can also add some color and flavor from the boil. some beers i like to boil for a very very long time. i am talking 2 gallons or more just trying to get a rich malt flavor.

i could be super wrong but that's why i boil longer.
 
More and more folks including myself are moving towards shorter boils like 30 to 45 minutes because honestly.... for the most part, 60 to 90 minutes is unnecessary, really not any advantages in the 21st century. DMS was a thing decades ago but with better malt varieties and malting process, DMS is basically a thing of the past.
 
Oh Dave, DMS is not a thing of the past. But you are correct that it is less of a problem.

As pointed out above, DMS can rear its head when your grist has a high percentage of pils malt in it. That's because very lightly kilned malt like pils, has more SMM in it. SMM creates DMS. That SMM has to be converted to DMS by heating it in the kettle and then boiling the DMS out of the wort. The good thing is that its very easy to get DMS out of wort with about 30 minutes of a rolling, uncovered boil. Note that I said rolling and not volcanic. As long as you can see that the wort is turning over in your kettle fairly quickly (say an inch per second), its good enough. Its the exchange with the atmosphere that controls how fast DMS is expelled into the steam.

It takes about 30 minutes of covered simmering to get a decent percentage of the SMM converted into DMS. The wort doesn't really have to be boiling since its the wort temperature and not the vigor or movement that controls the SMM to DMS conversion. But here is where temperature does have an effect on how long you may need to perform your 'boil' process. If you're brewing at high elevation, the temperature of your wort will be lower than if you were at sea level. For that reason, high elevation brewers may have to 'boil' for a longer time in order to produce adequately DMS-free beers when brewing with a lot of pils malt.

For most brewers, you're probably at well under 2000 ft elevation and you probably don't need to resort to boils over 60 minutes. Be aware that time and heat damage wort and that damage accelerates the time in which a beer presents oxidation or aging effects. If you're brewing a beer style (like barleywine) that depends on the 'aging' effects of a long boil, then by all means, continue your long boils. But if you're brewing a regular style that you want to not show aging effects, then I strongly recommend that you not boil too long.
 
mabrungard said:
Oh Dave, DMS is not a thing of the past. But you are correct that it is less of a problem.

As pointed out above, DMS can rear its head when your grist has a high percentage of pils malt in it. That's because very lightly kilned malt like pils, has more SMM in it. SMM creates DMS. That SMM has to be converted to DMS by heating it in the kettle and then boiling the DMS out of the wort. The good thing is that its very easy to get DMS out of wort with about 30 minutes of a rolling, uncovered boil. Note that I said rolling and not volcanic. As long as you can see that the wort is turning over in your kettle fairly quickly (say an inch per second), its good enough. Its the exchange with the atmosphere that controls how fast DMS is expelled into the steam.

It takes about 30 minutes of covered simmering to get a decent percentage of the SMM converted into DMS. The wort doesn't really have to be boiling since its the wort temperature and not the vigor or movement that controls the SMM to DMS conversion. But here is where temperature does have an effect on how long you may need to perform your 'boil' process. If you're brewing at high elevation, the temperature of your wort will be lower than if you were at sea level. For that reason, high elevation brewers may have to 'boil' for a longer time in order to produce adequately DMS-free beers when brewing with a lot of pils malt.

For most brewers, you're probably at well under 2000 ft elevation and you probably don't need to resort to boils over 60 minutes. Be aware that time and heat damage wort and that damage accelerates the time in which a beer presents oxidation or aging effects. If you're brewing a beer style (like barleywine) that depends on the 'aging' effects of a long boil, then by all means, continue your long boils. But if you're brewing a regular style that you want to not show aging effects, then I strongly recommend that you not boil too long.
Click to expand...

Thank you all for giving me such great information! Things are a lot clearer now, though I have 3 questions: Should I boil my wort without covering it, or will I be sacrificing quality if I don't cover it for the first 30 minutes? Second, most of the styles of beer that I will be brewing will be made mostly of pilsner malt ( Helles, Dortmunder and Kolsch) so what can I do to keep my beer free of DMS? Finally is there anything I don't want in my beer aside from DMS and esters, or do I just need to control the levels of those 2 things?
 
The main reason for covering the kettle is to reduce water loss, reduce heat loss, and to allow you to turn down the gas or electric input. As long as you uncover the kettle at the end of the boil and bump up the heat input to produce a nice rolling action, your beer will turn out well. 30 minutes of uncovered boiling has proven to be sufficient for DMS reduction.

But you can still have DMS in your wort if you allow your wort to sit for a long time while its above about 185F. Above that temp, SMM that may still be in the wort will convert to DMS. That DMS won't get expelled since you're done boiling. Being able to quickly chill your wort is a good thing.
 
How are the hazy IPA brewers doing a 30+ minute whirlpool/ hopstand post -boil and not getting SMM/DMS?
 
Beer Viking said:
When making a recipe what makes you choose to boil the wort for 60 or 90 minutes?
Click to expand...
I love the discussion so far, and the explanation from Martin. But I have a simple answer for the OP: I boil longer than my standard 60 minutes, occasionally, because my volume is not where I want it to be. Boil-off volume varies sometimes.
 
You can get DMS with some Pilsner malts with a 60 minute or weak boil. It is for real.

90 minute is the rule of thumb. It is good insurance against DMS.

There are brewers who use 60 minute boils. I’ve had a DMS dumper before using a 60 minute boil, so I’ve learned the hard way.

As a home brewer, I can’t guarantee that the Pilsner malt I buy this week is the same I get in the future. It is good the err on the side of caution, and go ahead with the 90 minute boils unless you are a regular user of some source of malt which is working on your system using your process.
 
The answer for needing to boil off excess water is to not add it in the first place. I had to recalculate my recipes when I figured out that excessive boiling was damaging my beers. It is a simple calc and easy to do.
 
mabrungard said:
The main reason for covering the kettle is to reduce water loss, reduce heat loss, and to allow you to turn down the gas or electric input. As long as you uncover the kettle at the end of the boil and bump up the heat input to produce a nice rolling action, your beer will turn out well. 30 minutes of uncovered boiling has proven to be sufficient for DMS reduction.

But you can still have DMS in your wort if you allow your wort to sit for a long time while its above about 185F. Above that temp, SMM that may still be in the wort will convert to DMS. That DMS won't get expelled since you're done boiling. Being able to quickly chill your wort is a good thing.
Click to expand...

What exactly does DMS taste like? I want to know what to check for in terms of flavor. What percentage of the grain bill needs to be pilsner in order to warrent a 90 minute boil just to be safe? Should I leave the lid of my kettle off during the whole boil or would it increase quality if it was covered for the first 30 minutes? Or is it just about efficiency?
 
Beer Viking said:
What percentage of the grain bill needs to be pilsner in order to warrent a 90 minute boil just to be safe?
Click to expand...
I make most of my beers with at least 50% pils and have never done a 90min boil. I'm not a Super Taster, but I have never detected any DMS in my beers. I think you're over-thinking this: just crack your kettle at least an inch, maintain a decent boil, and go with no less than a 30min boil.
 
cactusgarrett said:
I make most of my beers with at least 50% pils and have never done a 90min boil. I'm not a Super Taster, but I have never detected any DMS in my beers. I think you're over-thinking this: just crack your kettle at least an inch, maintain a decent boil, and go with no less than a 30min boil.
Click to expand...
Here is a great video with Dr. Charles Bamforth discussing boiling and DMS reduction:
 
mabrungard said:
Oh Dave, DMS is not a thing of the past. But you are correct that it is less of a problem.

As pointed out above, DMS can rear its head when your grist has a high percentage of pils malt in it. That's because very lightly kilned malt like pils, has more SMM in it. SMM creates DMS. That SMM has to be converted to DMS by heating it in the kettle and then boiling the DMS out of the wort. The good thing is that its very easy to get DMS out of wort with about 30 minutes of a rolling, uncovered boil. Note that I said rolling and not volcanic. As long as you can see that the wort is turning over in your kettle fairly quickly (say an inch per second), its good enough. Its the exchange with the atmosphere that controls how fast DMS is expelled into the steam.

It takes about 30 minutes of covered simmering to get a decent percentage of the SMM converted into DMS. The wort doesn't really have to be boiling since its the wort temperature and not the vigor or movement that controls the SMM to DMS conversion. But here is where temperature does have an effect on how long you may need to perform your 'boil' process. If you're brewing at high elevation, the temperature of your wort will be lower than if you were at sea level. For that reason, high elevation brewers may have to 'boil' for a longer time in order to produce adequately DMS-free beers when brewing with a lot of pils malt.

For most brewers, you're probably at well under 2000 ft elevation and you probably don't need to resort to boils over 60 minutes. Be aware that time and heat damage wort and that damage accelerates the time in which a beer presents oxidation or aging effects. If you're brewing a beer style (like barleywine) that depends on the 'aging' effects of a long boil, then by all means, continue your long boils. But if you're brewing a regular style that you want to not show aging effects, then I strongly recommend that you not boil too long.
Click to expand...

i brew at 4980FT but wouldn't my boil off increase as my brew system boils at 203F
 
Jako said:
i brew at 4980FT but wouldn't my boil off increase as my brew system boils at 203F
Click to expand...

I don't notice much more boiloff in Denver from much lower Dallas which I think is more attributable to the drier climate.

The only reason you would boiloff more boiling at a higher altitude directly related to the lower boiling point is if you put the same amount of energy into the boil but you should turn down the heat to maintain a gentle boil.
 
dmtaylor said:
Creamed corn and celery.

I still say, it’s more effort to try to get DMS in your beer on purpose than it is to prevent it.
Click to expand...

I've been brewing on and off since the late 80's,and I've always boiled for 60 minutes, and I've never detected DMS in any of my beers.
 
odie said:
probably hops? the longer the hops boil I think the more bitterness is imparted. the shorter the hops boil time more aroma and less bitterness.
Click to expand...
I notice with my software if I put a hop addition at 90 min or 60 min it calcluates the same bitterness for that addition. I don’t know if there’s a saturation point or whatever? I use BeerTools.
 
bwible said:
I notice with my software if I put a hop addition at 90 min or 60 min it calcluates the same bitterness for that addition. I don’t know if there’s a saturation point or whatever? I use BeerTools.
Click to expand...

If measured in a lab, you can gain about 3 more IBUs from a longer boil... however humans cannot taste a difference of 3-4 IBUs so it doesn’t matter.
 
bwible said:
I notice with my software if I put a hop addition at 90 min or 60 min it calculates the same bitterness for that addition. I don’t know if there’s a saturation point or whatever?
Click to expand...
Some 'relatively' recent preliminary data / measurements at
  • Basic Brewing Radio (link)
  • November 1, 2018 - IBUs vs Wort Gravity and Hop Stand Temps
  • open the PDF,
  • go to page 14.

Original Tinseth data can be found here (link) for those interested in graphing time & utilization.

eta: or see link in #37 below for graph of Tinseth data.
 
Last edited:
It should be stated that all beers have some level of DMS. And in some beers (including commercial) it is an intentional part of the flavor profile. It's all I can think about when drinking Miller Lite (which I would never drink unless being polite to someone who hands one to me). Bud Light is far more clean tasting. If you prefer Miller Lite, you may be enjoying a bit of perceptible DMS. Mind you, this is merely my opinion.
 
Last edited:
According to quite recent detailed research conducted by Professor Christopher S. Hamilton, Ph.D at Hillsdale College, in conjunction with his students, pellet hops essentially deliver all of the IBU's that they are ever going to deliver within only about 30 minutes, and they are at about 90% of achieving this end by 20 minutes. And they are about 70%-75% of the way there in only 5-10 minutes. And get this, they are ballpark 60% of the way home within as little as 1 minute. His research renders all current IBU calculators totally useless when dealing with pellet hops.
 
Last edited:
Silver_Is_Money said:
According to detailed research conducted by Professor Christopher S. Hamilton, Ph.D at Hillsdale College, in conjunction with his students, pellet hops essentially deliver all of the IBU's that they are ever going to deliver within only about 30 minutes, and they are at about 90% of achieving this end by 20 minutes. And they are about 70% of the way there in only 10 minutes. In other words, that which requires 60-90 minutes for whole hops requires only 30 minutes for pellets. This renders all current IBU calculators totally useless when dealing with pellet hops.
Click to expand...

If you could find the research and link it here, I would thank you.

I have a similar reasoning made by Strong to show here.
At pag 66 of his Brewing better beer, Strong gives a table of Hop Utilization with three columns:
TIME PELLETS WHOLE
60 28,6% 23,1%
30 21,9% 17,7%
20 17,4% 14,0%
15 14,1% 11.4%
10 10,4% 08,4%
05 05,7% 04,6%

That seem to confirm the result of the research by Hamilton. At 20' pellets give what cones give at 30', and at 30' pellets almost give what cones give at 60'.

I don't believe in calculators but in "tried and true" recipes 😋
 

Similar threads

land3r
Boiled instead of Hop Standing... oops
Replies
7
Views
412
ncbrewer
N
Lollim96
Can someone please explain AG brewing in mash tune that don’t have elements? Like cooler tuns?
Replies
13
Views
1K
marx2k
M
theirondude
Adding Hops
Replies
3
Views
419
flipster
flipster
rkhanso
My first SMaSH recipe. Opinions appreciated
Replies
8
Views
736
Genuine
Genuine
L
Flame-Out Hops Addition and Hop Socks
Replies
4
Views
830
mac_1103
mac_1103
Williams Brewing 300

Latest posts

Back
Top