Just curious who does a 90 minute boil when using Pilsner malt.
I’ve made pilsners with just a 75-minute boil before and have been fine, but that was before I knew any better. Now I’ll always do 90 minutes, just to be on the safe side. It’s probably not necessary, but on the other hand, a friend of mine always gets DMS in his pilsner beers even though he boils for 90 minutes. So… who’s to say which way is safer or better, because who out there honestly understands all the reasons why DMS shows up sometimes and other times does not?? I decided a couple of years ago that from here on out, I would always rather be safe than sorry, and this goes for all the different aspects of how I brew. I could run more experiments with pilsner malt, but… nah. I’ll just boil for 90 minutes, to be safe.
I’ve never gotten DMS form the malts I’ve used so I don’t bother with the long boil.
I always do, even when there’s only a couple pounds of pils in a grainbill. A 90 minute boil means I use more water, which means my efficiency will get a slight bump. So I do it for that just as much as reducing any chance of DMS in the final beer.
A couple of the pro brewers in my area discussed this at a homebrew club meeting. They do 90 min. boils on their big systems because it takes them a long time to cool the wort in comparison to smaller homebrew size batches. It was their opinion that 90 minute boils were not necessary if you can chill your wort fairly quickly. (getting it below 140 F in 10-15 minutes). If you whirlpool at higher temps for awhile, or don’t chill quickly for some other reason, then longer boils are a good idea.
I voted “never” but the caveat to that is, I’ve only ever brewed one beer with pilsner so far. Been focusing on IPA’s too much lately.
I voted always though I’ve only used pilsner malts a few times. So I followed the conventional wisdom even though I was heavily swayed when I asked the question in here and Denny responded as above. :shock:
I did a 90 minutes boil with a couple of pilsner malt beers I did early on. Then I heard if you have a really good hard boil you don’t need to go 90 minutes. Now I don’t, thought I also don’t use a whole lot of pilsner malt these days.
I do a 60 or 70 minute boil with the lid partially on the pot and have never had an issue.
I’ve always wondered if this is one of those things that is important for commercial brewers, but is a non-issue for homebrewers.
Oh, it can be an issue for homebrewers alright… like I said, a friend of mine gets DMS no matter what he does, it seems. Maybe he’s using Briess, and I always use Weyermann or Dingeman’s… somebody out there knows all the differences between a lot of different maltsters. I think that’s a factor, and process and equipment make differences as well. My friend’s got a keggle, so in theory the steam is more restricted and can condense and run back down into the beer. Me, on the other hand, I’ve often got a full 4 gallons in a 5-gallon kettle, so there’s no condensation going on. Etc. etc. etc. Lots of variables at play.
I never do. I am a best maltz guy. I haven’t had DMS to this point. I do a rigorous boil and chill pretty quickly, trying to get a decent hot and cold break, but that’s not Pilsner specific.
Funny… I never do because Denny doesn’t!
I use a lot of pilsner malt, and always followed the convetional wisdom of a long boil (same logic of “better safe” above), but lately I’m thinking I should try shorter. The malt I use (Viking) is very well modified and I use a plate chiller for very rapid cooling. I should be fine with a short boil.
I never have and I haven’t had DMS issues. I’ve usually used Castle or Best malt.
I had, for several years, due to the commonly held and spouted wisdom from the homebrew community that 90 minutes was needed for pils malt beers.
Wondered if I was wasting half hour of my life each time I brewed; so, I recently did a standard recipe in my brewery – American Blonde. I only did a 60-minute boil, as an experiment. I expected to detect at least “a little” DMS, due to all I have heard and read (Zainisheff and forums and misc), warning about it, as if it would be automatic.
None. No DMS in this Blonde. I tested it out last night. Although this was a first-time experiment, I intend to repeat it and hopefully save a lot of time on each pilsner malt brew in future.
Like Burd, I use Bestmalz and boil hard. (no lid on pot, either- don’t see the need to keep lid on it during boil, but that’s another topic).
I am continually amazed at the “facts” homebrewers accept without testing them. That was a real motivation behind the book Drew and I did.
High protein malts tend to have high levels of s-methylmethionine which, in turn, produces more DMS.
In addition to boil length, the type of barley, protein content and soluble protein percent of the malt used should be compared (as well as the Maltster).
Randomly stating how long everyone boils doesn’t lend to a sensible conclusion.
A good article and introduction to understanding DMS:
http://www.picobrewery.com/askarchive/dms.htmA good article and introduction to understanding Malts and their Analysis Sheets:
http://morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/bmg/noonan.html[quote=“powerball”]High protein malts tend to have high levels of s-methylmethionine which, in turn, produces more DMS.
In addition to boil length, the type of barley, protein content and soluble protein percent of the malt used should be compared (as well as the Maltster).
Randomly stating how long everyone boils doesn’t lend to a sensible conclusion.
[/quote]
Well the statement was about Pilsner (which is generally 2-row and kilned relatively the same length of time) so all things really remain relatively consistent other than the maltster.
To say it doesn’t lend to a sensible conclusion, well that all depends on what type of conclusion you attempting to draw from this. I just wanted to get an idea how many people do a 90 min boil. It’s pretty close to 50%. My conclusion is that roughly half of these people boil for 90 minutes when using pilsner malt. I can safely draw that conclusion.
If the conclusion you are trying to draw is “Is all modern malt devoid of producing DMS” well there are way too many variables there to draw any conclusions. But I don’t think anyone was drawing that conclusion at all. They were discussing their findings not saying “you never have to do it, its hogwash” or “always do it, DMS is imminent!”
My point is that conclusion is worthless.
That’s like determining if you should start smoking by asking how many people smoke and 50% raise their hands.
Knowing the scientific basis for why you should or shouldn’t smoke would be a better starting point.
Denny says he only boils for 60 minutes… what malt is he using? what type of barley? what is the protein content?
Dave says he always boils for 90 minutes… what malt is he using? what type of barley? what is the protein content?
You want to find the differences in malt and process.
Drawing reasonable conclusions based on the differences in malt and process would be more useful than asking how many people boil pilsner malt for 90 minutes.
Let’s try this, everyone who responded to the poll please answer the following questions:
1.) What maltster is your malt from?
2.) What is the protein content of your malt?
3.) What is the soluble protein content of your malt?
4.) What type of barley if you malt? (2-row or 6-row)
5.) How old is your malt?
6.) How long do you boil?
7.) How vigorous is your boil?
8.) How sensitive are you to DMS?
I’m sure there’s more questions, but that’s a start.
My point is that conclusion is worthless.
That’s like determining if you should start smoking by asking how many people smoke and 50% raise their hands.
[/quote]
Here is your faux pas. I didn’t say this would in any way sway my decision on how I would do my boils. I was hoping to start an interesting conversation about the topic as well, which I appeared to have done. Your assumption that I’m looking for validation of my process one way or the other is patently false.
