30 minute Boil Time for an IPA?

hi fellas

if you don't plan on much bittering hops for an IPA, would there be any harm boiling for 30 mins (as long as u achieved a rolling boil) or would there be a risk of DMS or is this another myth.

I know someone on here mentioned a 30 min boil time and it sounded like it came out ok:thumb:

BeerisGOD said:

hi fellas

if you don't plan on much bittering hops for an IPA, would there be any harm boiling for 30 mins (as long as u achieved a rolling boil) or would there be a risk of DMS or is this another myth.

I know someone on here mentioned a 30 min boil time and it sounded like it came out ok:thumb:

Click to expand...

Hi Beers,

1, I have not heard of a 30 min boil before that said the general guide for killing bugs and bacteria in water boil I believe is 15mins.

2, Another reason I know of for boiling for 60 mins is The longer the hops are boiled, the more IBU’s are contributed to the wort.

3, Oh, and a longer boil helps with protein coagulation.

So, if the second & third points is not a factor then I cant see why you wouldn't do a 30 min boil.

I have not done extract brewing but, I believe they do short boils just for hop extraction; anyone confirm or deny?

I think that Brulosophy did some experiments and could not tell the difference between a 30m and 60m boil.

The title says MASH time but assuming you mean't boil I see no problem with a 30 min boil as long as you can get the required IBUs from later hop additions. I think 60-90 min came from commercial breweries as the most efficient energy/hop utilisation ratio.

BeerisGOD said:

hi fellas

if you don't plan on much bittering hops for an IPA, would there be any harm boiling for 30 mins (as long as u achieved a rolling boil) or would there be a risk of DMS or is this another myth.

I know someone on here mentioned a 30 min boil time and it sounded like it came out ok:thumb:

Click to expand...

A 30 minute boil is probably fine; I'm thinking of cutting back from 75 minutes too. The words of wisdom were that it secures "hot break", which is perhaps a myth? DMS? Few had heard of it in home-brew circles 10-15 years ago; that is a myth. Inconclusive recent "tests" about rolling boils, so yet another myth? In this "blame society" lots of theories (like DMS) have built up that just gives an excuse for making nasty beer when it's really down to lack of care and attention.

So not all these ideas flooding across the Atlantic are necessarily wrong. But "Americanisms" like "IPA" (it is just "pale ale", the "I" means nothing at all) and "cold crashing" send shivers up my spine. We can do without them!

Best beer I ever did had a 30 min boil. Plenty of time for a hot break. It was a juicy hop bomb that needed to be drunk young, so it didn't hang around long enough for any protein-related shelf life issues.

peebee said:

A 30 minute boil is probably fine; I'm thinking of cutting back from 75 minutes too. The words of wisdom were that it secures "hot break", which is perhaps a myth? DMS? Few had heard of it in home-brew circles 10-15 years ago; that is a myth. Inconclusive recent "tests" about rolling boils, so yet another myth? In this "blame society" lots of theories (like DMS) have built up that just gives an excuse for making nasty beer when it's really down to lack of care and attention.

So not all these ideas flooding across the Atlantic are necessarily wrong. But "Americanisms" like "IPA" (it is just "pale ale", the "I" means nothing at all) and "cold crashing" send shivers up my spine. We can do without them!

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean about DMS being a myth. I think it's unlikely, and I agree that it's a term thrown about too much in brewing clubs, but it can and does happen occasionally. I had it once in a 15 min boil weisse and I've definitely tasted it in a couple of commercial beers.

But regarding the op, a 30 min boil shouldn't be a problem. I've done it a few times without any issue.

strange-steve said:

I'm not sure what you mean about DMS being a myth. I think it's unlikely, and I agree that it's a term thrown about too much ...

Click to expand...

You are sure! To prove it you've summarised what I said into "thrown about too much". My language just reflects a more sceptical view.

I would say that for an IPA you could get away with a short boil as it won't age well anyway, as the loss of hop aroma over time will have such a negative impact on the beer that any negative results that develop from a short boil won't be as much of an issue.

What happens in the boil is complex and has many facets, more than are listed in this thread, and the issues often require the right (or wrong) conditions during fermentation to become apparent. Such as the myth of DMS, which isn't actually present in wort, but its precursors are, and require boiling off. Short boils may not result in initial perceivable off flavours, but will have an overall impact on quality and stability of beer.

As the Brulosopher has been mentioned, I would point out that his evaluation process of any of his exbeeriments never take shelf life into consideration.

Strangesteve, did you ever measure the pH after your short boils? I'm wondering if sufficient wort pH drop occurs in a shorter timeframe, as this would have an effect on stability and post boil infection risk.

Sent from my C5303 using Tapatalk

Just thought its obvious but just in case remember to account for less boil off volume.

Sadfield said:

Strangesteve, did you ever measure the pH after your short boils? I'm wondering if sufficient wort pH drop occurs in a shorter timeframe, as this would have an effect on stability and post boil infection risk.

Sent from my C5303 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I haven't, but as far as I'm aware the wort pH has little bearing on the beer pH which is predominantly a function of yeast activity, so as long as your pitch rates are good the pH will fairly quickly fall to the correct level.

peebee said:

You are sure! To prove it you've summarised what I said into "thrown about too much". My language just reflects a more sceptical view.

Click to expand...

So the myth then is that DMS is as big a problem as it's made out to be, not that it is a possibility? If so then we're in agreement :thumb:

BeerCat said:

I think that Brulosophy did some experiments and could not tell the difference between a 30m and 60m boil.

Click to expand...

I am always amazed by the Brulosophy experiments. They do confirm my profound belief that just making beer is pretty easy, fairly robust and that once beer is brewed it is fairly resilient. Very few of the Brulosophy trials ever turn out much differences.

David Heath only boils his Juicy IPA FOR 30 minutes in one of his Grainfather videos on YouTube, have a look.
He even does a Saison with no boil at all.

Brewdoug said:

David Heath only boils his Juicy IPA FOR 30 minutes in one of his Grainfather videos on YouTube, have a look.
He even does a Saison with no boil at all.

Click to expand...

I have done his no boil Saison. came out a very nice beer, very spicy from the yeast. Its well worth trying a 5l batch of raw wort. You just have to remember to add hops to the mash.

BeerCat said:

I have done his no boil Saison. came out a very nice beer, very spicy from the yeast. Its well worth trying a 5l batch of raw wort. You just have to remember to add hops to the mash.

Click to expand...

Oh cock! We have a SMaSH comp coming up at one of the homebrew clubs and I had a Sorachi Saison recipe ready to go. This drops a Bengal Tiger amongst the pigeons.

simon12 said:

The title says MASH time but assuming you mean't boil I see no problem with a 30 min boil as long as you can get the required IBUs from later hop additions. I think 60-90 min came from commercial breweries as the most efficient energy/hop utilisation ratio.

Click to expand...

Yes simon12 slip of tongue. Boil it was meant to be