MrRook
Landlord.
I only boiled this pilsner for 30 minutes and it turned out great.
Short boil
- Thread starter MrRook
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
AJA
Landlord.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2022
- Messages
- 524
- Reaction score
- 438
With modern pilsner malt, why wouldn't it taste great after a 30 minute boil?#saveenergy
I never do more than a 45 minute boil nowadays 
The Biochemist
Active Member
Agreed - following on from Marshall Schott’s Short and Shoddy series I rarely boil for more that 30 minutes now.
MrRook
Landlord.
Braufather
Landlord.
I should probably try it but I always go for 70mins. My theory is like with cooking the reducing process helps flavour ( even if you end up at the same place)
Bolsover Brewer
Well-Known Member
I think the first taste of beer is visual, if a beer is bright and attractive then one knows the process has been a success, especially the boil. Boils should be hard to drive off the volatiles between 60 to 90 minutes where a really hard boil will achieve the objectives in 60 mins. Each to their own but 80 mins for me.
scomet
Member
There is a lot more to 'boils' than conversion, sighs.
Boil times is one of those personal preferences IMO and I do 45 minutes virtually all the time and it has not made my beer any worse for it, mine is bright and appealing to look at. Each to their own as long as you are happy with the results
Cheshire Cat
Landlord.
I’m surprised when people are unwilling to try something different. Ingredients and equipment improv so what was true 10 years ago may not be true now. Before I came on this forum I boiled and mashed for 90 minutes because Graham Wheeler told me that was right. I now do both for 60. I will try a 30 minute boil for low IBU beer for sure.
Hi CC i have done the odd 30 min boil but have erred on the slightly longer side of a 45 min compromise as a regular brew time. I do agree with the Graham Wheeler point .
I also do the overnight mashes and that is also a contentious issue with us brewers too
.I also do the overnight mashes and that is also a contentious issue with us brewers too
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2013
- Messages
- 6,291
- Reaction score
- 6,026
I would like to see some scientific evidence before I would try it. I would try a shorter boil with ale malt. Not with pilsner malt. If every picture tells a story then the OP's picture would encourage me to pass.
Rule of thumb is 20% or more of pilsner malt in a grain bill a 90 minute boil is recommended.
Rule of thumb is 20% or more of pilsner malt in a grain bill a 90 minute boil is recommended.
Sadfield
Landlord.
Yet in an age of high energy costs and global warming, even the largest of breweries are looking at other ways to reduce costs and environmental impact, rather than simply boiling for less time. Perhaps, they and Graham Wheeler know something you don't? Each to their own though, do what works. Tried it, didn't like the thinner malt profile.
I do agree Sadfield that if you are a malt head and like a "thicker" profile the extra boiling time will concentrate the wort to give more of what suits yourself. I personally do like malty beers as with most others and a shorter boil does not seem to make that much difference to my taste buds but everybody is different as with hop taste and I see your point
Maybe the shorter boil could be countered with a small additional grain boost or a lower water amount to give you that extra boost of malt for people that are wanting to save time on the boil/brew day. Who knows just a suggestion
scomet
Member
It's called raw ale for a reason but each to their own, I just dont think it is good practice.
I thought Raw Ale was no boil at all?
Try it with a higher IBU just by increasing your bittering hop quantity.
Sadfield
Landlord.
Isn't anything raw until its been deemed cooked to the right state.
