The obvious thing to do for this is to just increase my sparge water but is there any reason I can’t just sparge for close to equal runnings as if I were doing a 60 minute boil and just add water to the kettle just before I start boiling to compensate? Is there any benefit of running that extra 3 quarts through the mashtun? Not that it’s any easier one way or the other mostly just curious
The benefit of running them through would be to adjust the pH downward. That said, 90 minutes boils are bunk unless you are using retro undermodified malt.
+1.060!
Well unless you are brewing a recipe that requires a 90 minute hop addition 
Well unless you are brewing a recipe that requires a 90 minute hop addition [/quote]
The difference between a 90 and a 60 min addition is going to be very small, depending on what calculator you use probably 5-10%. Either increase the 60 min addition by 5-10% or live with a couple fewer IBUs and then use the 30 min you saved to RDWHAHB
Well unless you are brewing a recipe that requires a 90 minute hop addition [/quote]
The difference between a 90 and a 60 min addition is going to be very small, depending on what calculator you use probably 5-10%. Either increase the 60 min addition by 5-10% or live with a couple fewer IBUs and then use the 30 min you saved to RDWHAHB[/quote]
Sure but every Pliny recipe out there has a 90 minute addition. Not saying its necessary but the recipe speaks for itself.
Agreed
I do 90 minute boils all the time. Not because it’s neccessary, but because it gives me more time to prepare for future steps, and I feel less rushed. If anything it gives me more time to RDWHAHB.
It won’t hurt - and if that’s the recipe - go for it. I’d just run the extra water through the grain rather than adding water to the kettle. You might save 10% of $ from the hops, but you’ll lose that in propain.
+1.060![/quote]
I’d be interested to know if most pilsner malts are up to the 60 minute standard these days or if there are some commonly known exceptions. I really only use Best and Weyermann Bohemian Pils and would be glad to reduce the length of my brew day if there is no benefit to boiling longer.
+1.060![/quote]
I’d be interested to know if most pilsner malts are up to the 60 minute standard these days or if there are some commonly known exceptions. I really only use Best and Weyermann Bohemian Pils and would be glad to reduce the length of my brew day if there is no benefit to boiling longer.[/quote]
I’m brewing a recipe with Dingemans pilsner this week and would be interested in knowing this as well. I’d hate to have a Vienna lager tasting like corn after putting all that time and money in it.
+1.060![/quote]
I’d be interested to know if most pilsner malts are up to the 60 minute standard these days or if there are some commonly known exceptions. I really only use Best and Weyermann Bohemian Pils and would be glad to reduce the length of my brew day if there is no benefit to boiling longer.[/quote]
Weyermann I’d say maybe, maybe not. Best, Durst, MFB and most others I’ve used are fine with 60 min.
http://morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/bmg/noonan.html Took a quick peek for Dingeman stats and didn't find what I wanted but the pils said low protein, so I think your fine. That said, you might be able to get your lot info from your supplier.
Kinda laughing because my house “IPA” is 1.075 and Pliny (IIPA) is 1.070. Hey, if you are into it, go for a 90 minute boil but I would just bump to 60m addition a tad… I am just stoked that I went to a half hour mash (ale) and put runnings directly into kettle and shaved an hour of the typical brewday…
[quote=“Denny”][quote=“Dan S”]
I’d be interested to know if most pilsner malts are up to the 60 minute standard these days or if there are some commonly known exceptions. I really only use Best and Weyermann Bohemian Pils and would be glad to reduce the length of my brew day if there is no benefit to boiling longer.[/quote]
Weyermann I’d say maybe, maybe not. Best, Durst, MFB and most others I’ve used are fine with 60 min.[/quote]
Thanks, Denny – I don’t know why I’m still a little squeamish, but I’m looking at brewing a Munich Helles in the near future and will give the 60 minute boil a shot with Best.
[quote=“zwiller”]http://morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/bmg/noonan.html Took a quick peek for Dingeman stats and didn’t find what I wanted but the pils said low protein, so I think your fine. That said, you might be able to get your lot info from your supplier.
Kinda laughing because my house “IPA” is 1.075 and Pliny (IIPA) is 1.070. Hey, if you are into it, go for a 90 minute boil but I would just bump to 60m addition a tad… I am just stoked that I went to a half hour mash (ale) and put runnings directly into kettle and shaved an hour of the typical brewday…[/quote]
I would love to only do a 60 minute boil. But as I said above, 30 minutes of my time as a “just in case” is worth it in my opinion. I’d hate to find out in a couple months when I bottle this that 30 minutes of my life could have saved months of work. I’d really like to see some more conclusive studies on this. It seems like the 90-min DMS myth is gaining some traction.
Ain’t no pils malt in that Pliny clone, is there? That vienna is another story…
Sorry for the confusion, I was using the Pliny as another example of why someone would do a 90 minute boil. I don’t plan on brewing a Pliny clone anytime soon.
The Vienna is what I’m worried about.
Sorry for the confusion, I was using the Pliny as another example of why someone would do a 90 minute boil. I don’t plan on brewing a Pliny clone anytime soon.
The Vienna is what I’m worried about.[/quote]
Whoa, maybe I missed it…are you concerned about DMS from Vienna malt or form the use of pils malt in a Vienna?
Sorry for the confusion, I was using the Pliny as another example of why someone would do a 90 minute boil. I don’t plan on brewing a Pliny clone anytime soon.
The Vienna is what I’m worried about.[/quote]
Whoa, maybe I missed it…are you concerned about DMS from Vienna malt or form the use of pils malt in a Vienna?[/quote]
There is 3lbs of Pilsner in the Vienna recipe.
Thanks, Matt. I certainly worry about that at all in that case.
