I bought ingredients at my LHBS to do a recipe similar to the NB Patersbier AG. I’ve read that using 100% Beligian pilsner malt can produce DMS and should be boiled for 90 minutes. Can anyone comment or advise?
It’s not unique to Belgian pils malt. Any very lightly kilned malt will have more SMM, the precursor to DMS, than darker kilned malts. Boiling for 90 min. is a precaution to make sure you don’t get DMS. That said, it’s not a given that you’ll get DMS by not boiling for 90 min. I have used many German and Belgian pils malts with a 60 min. boil and no problem.
Does water chemistry play any role there? Anything i should pay attention to in Brunwater or additions I should make?
I have a 100% Pilsner (Best Malz) Belgian IPA and a Blonde fermenting now, brewed last Sunday, didn’t do anything special as far as salt additions. Make sure you use the correct L on the malt (probably 1.5) in bru’nwater. I always do 90-minute boils regardless of the malt.
Does water chemistry play any role there? Anything i should pay attention to in Brunwater or additions I should make?[/quote]
Just be sure to get the alkalinity and pH right.
But no, the water chemistry and mash pH don’t change the DMS. A 90+ minute boil and a quick chill will limit the DMS.
Last batch of my house beer that I brewed I used Best pilsner malt instead of pale ale malt and 34/70 instead of S-05. I did my usual 45 minute boil and it came out great.
Last few BIAB batches I’ve done a 75 minute boil so that’s likely what I’ll do with the belgian as well. I chill pretty quickly with my IC and mid 50s well water so that aspect is covered.
I do the same, and I believe it has greatly improved my beer.
I do the same, and I believe it has greatly improved my beer.[/quote]
In what way?
I do the same, and I believe it has greatly improved my beer.[/quote]
In what way?[/quote]
I would be interested in your response too. I recently brewed the same beer twice. The first time I boiled for 60 minutes. The second time I sparged with 2 extra gallons of water, then boiled for 3 hours and 15 minutes, to the same original gravity. It was Maris Otter malt.
The second batch was slightly darker, but I was surprised how little difference in flavor there was between the two. I had assumed the differences would be more significant.
[quote=“sl8w”]I would be interested in your response too. I recently brewed the same beer twice. The first time I boiled for 60 minutes. The second time I sparged with 2 extra gallons of water, then boiled for 3 hours and 15 minutes, to the same original gravity. It was Maris Otter malt.
The second batch was slightly darker, but I was surprised how little difference in flavor there was between the two. I had assumed the differences would be more significant.[/quote]
Interesting observation, thanks for sharing that.
[quote=“Denny”][quote=“narcout”][quote=“Shadetree”]I always do 90-minute boils regardless of the malt.[/quote]I do the same, and I believe it has greatly improved my beer.[/quote]In what way?[/quote]Can’t speak for narcout, but I see a very large hot break with longer boils (70+ minutes) and end up with commercial-quality clarity in most beers with no additions other than whirlfloc and no filtering. But there’s no impact to flavor, positive or negative.
That’d be a good reason to extend a boil. I’ve been having some minor clarity issues with a few British malts.
I didn’t pay attention to or compare the hot break, and both of my beers were crystal clear. But I used a very flocculant british yeast, so I’m not sure if my comparison can speak to that. I also wonder if the differences would be more noticable with a lighter malt, like pilsner.
I agree with the hot break difference with the 90 minute boil, but I can’t say that it translates into anything in the finished beer. I just do 90 minute boils with pilsner and 60 minute boils with 2 row and Maris Otter - out of habit at this point, I guess.
The Irish Red Ale I’m drinking right now is really clear. I boiled it 75 minutes. I hadn’t made the connection to boil time but it’s certainly more clear than the Irish blond I did just before it with a 60 minute boil. Used Irish moss in both.
That jives with my experience. About ten years ago, I spent large portions of three brewing seasons trying to get a solid, practical hold on the Maillard reaction thing. To do this, I skipped using crystal malts and tried to find a way to pick up their contributions in the kettle. I’m satisfied that the vigor of the boil and the density of the wort, not it’s duration, are the dominant factors in the creation of kettle flavors. Ultimately, I wound up building a two gallon pot that I ran on the stove with a strong heat stick. The trick was to condense the fraction of wort not in the main boil as quickly as possible, then boil it as hard as possible.
I agree. Thanks. If I had planned better, I would have done a third batch, where I boiled for 3+ hours, then added the extra 2 gallons after the boil rather than in the sparge. Under that approach, the boil would have been stronger and more concentrated, and possibly given different results.
I do the same, and I believe it has greatly improved my beer.[/quote]
In what way?[/quote]
It solved my DMS problem.
I know other people are boiling for 75 minutes, 60 minutes or even less time without issue, but my experience was different.
