Hot break

Since I double batch sparge, I add my FWH addition to the first runnings. I'll turn the heat on after I add the second runnings, bring to a boil until the hot break has subsided, then add the third runnings, which brings the hops that have stuck to the sides during the break back into the boil. I'm sure that this is all kinds of wrong, but it works for me.

 

It gets rids of coagulated protein and decreases the chance of a late boil over. Plus it gives me something to do as the wort comes to a boil (i.e. keeps me at the kettle to prevent a boil over).

 

The only ‘benefits’ that I can think of (from my own unique perspective) for conducting a 90 minute boil vs. a 60 minute boil is:

· Increased hop utilization

· Drive off unwanted volatiles (e.g., DMS)

IMO, the increased hop utilization of 90 minutes is not worth the increased energy cost. If I think I need ‘extra’ IBUs I simply add a tiny bit more hops at the beginning of boil addition.

The aspect of driving off volatiles (e.g., DMS) is something I do not know how to quantify. In the past I would boil beers that are predominantly comprised of Pilsner Malt for 90 minutes since the conventional wisdom is that Pilsner Malt wort needs ‘extra’ boil time (since Pilsner Malt is higher in SMM; a DMS pre-curser). A wise person on another beer forum posted in a thread discussion: “Traditionally, pilsner malt needed a longer boil in order to drive off the precursor of DMS (SMM). Today's pilsner malts are better in that regard.”

I recently brewed a Kolsch beer which was 100% Pilsner Malt (Weyermann Pilsner Malt) and I boiled for 75 minutes. The resulting beer had no discernable DMS (and I am very, very sensitive to DMS). I am starting to think that maybe I only really needed to boil for 60 minutes?

Does anybody know of any studies which quantify volatiles such as DMS as a function of boil time?

Cheers!

P.S. I recognize that some folks may want to boil longer for other reasons (e.g., caramelization of wort sugars darkens the wort as it boil). A good article is: http://byo.com/stories/item/1650-wort-boiling-homebrew-science

 

Allow me please to phreely plagerize @jae
"It gets rids of coagulated protein and decreases the chance of a late boil over. Plus it gives me something to do as the wort comes to a boil (i.e. keeps me at the kettle to prevent a boil over)."

Also 'sposed to produce clearer wort.

Keep On Brewin'

 

I skim mainly so that the hops don't get bound up with the protein goo and thus (possibly) reduce hop utilization.

 

I don't think it helps with wort clarity. Once proteins are coagulated, they are coagulated . . . they will precipitate.

 

OK...wort weren't the write word.

Shoulda read " 'sposed to produce clearer beer."
No only 'sposed to but it actually does.

 

I'll non-scientifically corroborate both you and VikeMan. My last two beers have been much clearer and had much improved hop flavor, partially due to improved process, I'm sure, but I've also been much more diligent about skimming, and also not doing a 60 minute addition until the hot break has been all but removed.

 

I'm in the same boat. I used to leave it all there, but I've in the last year or so, started pulling it off as it's settling in. I skimp it, and toss it in the grass, and once it's all gone and boiling, I start the "timer" so to speak.