102 replies to this topic

[Big Nake]

I assume that for the recipes where hops are added only at the beginning of the boil that these are not good candidates for no boil.

Also, for my helles (and occasionally other beers), I do a FWH. Would anyone care to guess what happens to a FWH addition in a 30m that would be different than a 60m boil?

[HVB]

I assume that for the recipes where hops are added only at the beginning of the boil that these are not good candidates for no boil.

Also, for my helles (and occasionally other beers), I do a FWH. Would anyone care to guess what happens to a FWH addition in a 30m that would be different than a 60m boil?

I have thought about it and I do not have an answer but I assume it would be different.  Since some say that FWH gives similarities to 20 minute additions I would just change up the recipe.

 

I personally would only no-boil something that I wanted a big WP addition in and most lagers for me would not fall in that camp.  They would just get a standard 30 minute boil.

[jayb151]

Would anyone care to guess what happens to a FWH addition in a 30m that would be different than a 60m boil?

 

I have figured on my system, a FWH addition was about the same as a 20-25 minute addition bitterness-wise. 

 

So can I guess a 30 minute boil would make it more like a 15-20 minute addition?

[Big Nake]

I have figured on my system, a FWH addition was about the same as a 20-25 minute addition bitterness-wise. 
 
So can I guess a 30 minute boil would make it more like a 15-20 minute addition?

Hey Jayb... good to see you back here. I was thinking the same thing. I'm not sure I was ever convinced that a FWH was like a 20m addition on a 60m boil but I've definitely heard that. What I would do is go with the FWH and a 30m bittering addition, try to get the IBUs to line up and just cross fingers. I'll have a helles coming up again here shortly and plan to find out. Cheers & hope all is well with the fam.

[jayb151]

Hey, thanks a lot! Man, things sure have changed around here, but I'm glad to be back. I'm doing the stay-home-dad thing right now, and we just bought our first place!

 

Actually going to my nearest LHBS today for the first time so I can get some supplies for a cider. Not exactly ready yet to go full on making beer since I'm a little short on equipment, but that's my winter project. Cheers, and I hope the helles turns out!

[Big Nake]

Guys: I had two pints of this latest helles yesterday and it was my first helles with the 30-minute boil. I'm only making a big deal about it because this beer has no late hops so it relies solely on the earlier additions and this recipe of mine has a FWH and I wondered about how the shorter boil time would impact that. We usually hear that a FWH is perceived to be like a 20-minute addition. With the shorter boil time, I would like to advance the theory that a FWH is now more like a 10-minute addition. In the two pints I tried yesterday, I seemed to pick up a little more in the way of hop presence which could be because I slightly overshot my early additions to make up for the shorter boil time and it also could be because the beer is young. Whatever the case, the beer is very nice and I feel like the FWH and/or bittering addition had more of its hop character preserved because it wasn't obliterated by that second 30 minutes in a 60 minute boil.

[denny]

Guys: I had two pints of this latest helles yesterday and it was my first helles with the 30-minute boil. I'm only making a big deal about it because this beer has no late hops so it relies solely on the earlier additions and this recipe of mine has a FWH and I wondered about how the shorter boil time would impact that. We usually hear that a FWH is perceived to be like a 20-minute addition. With the shorter boil time, I would like to advance the theory that a FWH is now more like a 10-minute addition. In the two pints I tried yesterday, I seemed to pick up a little more in the way of hop presence which could be because I slightly overshot my early additions to make up for the shorter boil time and it also could be because the beer is young. Whatever the case, the beer is very nice and I feel like the FWH and/or bittering addition had more of its hop character preserved because it wasn't obliterated by that second 30 minutes in a 60 minute boil.

 

I'll buy that

[positiveContact]

it's hard to argue with results.  sounds great Ken!  

[MyaCullen]

bump for carlos

[Big Nake]

So I posted over on AHA and I was wondering about the change in the head formation and stability on my beers lately. I had posted (as an example) this pic I took yesterday.



I was wondering if something I have been doing differently (water mods, pH control, BTB, etc) was responsible for the better head formation. Martin responded over there with this:
 

With regard to the heading ability of your beers, have you altered your boil time? Long boil times are known to destroy head-building capability. Keeping your boil time to around 60 minutes is preferred for improving heading. Reducing the heat-stress that is placed on the wort (by reducing the energy input and covering the kettle), also helps improve heading.

Drez or anyone else... have you heard of this before? I responded by saying that I had switched over to a 30m boil time for my last 15 batches.

[HVB]

So I posted over on AHA and I was wondering about the change in the head formation and stability on my beers lately. I had posted (as an example) this pic I took yesterday.



I was wondering if something I have been doing differently (water mods, pH control, BTB, etc) was responsible for the better head formation. Martin responded over there with this:


Drez or anyone else... have you heard of this before?

 

I will have to think about that and look back at some pictures.  I know I never really had any head (insert joke) problems before and sure have not had any since I went to 30.  That beer in the picture looks excellent!

[Big Nake]

I will have to think about that and look back at some pictures.  I know I never really had any head (insert joke) problems before and sure have not had any since I went to 30.  That beer in the picture looks excellent!

It just shows you how hard it is to shake some of our homebrewing boogeymen... all this time I was wondering if there might be a downside to the 30m boil when in actuality there could actually be an upside. I have no idea how widespread the idea of the 30m boil is. I have not looked around for threads about it on other forums. I know my LHBS owner still tells me to boil for 90 minutes when I buy pilsner malt. I told her not only was I not boiling 90 but actually 30 and she just about fell over.

[HVB]

It just shows you how hard it is to shake some of our homebrewing boogeymen... all this time I was wondering if there might be a downside to the 30m boil when in actuality there could actually be an upside. I have no idea how widespread the idea of the 30m boil is. I have not looked around for threads about it on other forums. I know my LHBS owner still tells me to boil for 90 minutes when I buy pilsner malt. I told her not only was I not boiling 90 but actually 30 and she just about fell over.

I still have some that tell me I am crazy for a only boiling for 30. I think many listened to Jamil early on and think a long boil is the only way. I was in that camp till I saw the light.

[Big Nake]

On one hand, I like the idea of someone smarter than me telling me why it's good to boil a beer for 60 minutes, 90 minutes, etc. and what the benefits would be to that and what the drawbacks would be when boiling for only 30 minutes. OTOH, I have already been there and have put away plenty of 30-minute beer and I don't need anyone to tell me that it shouldn't be done. The last 15 batches of beer have been STELLAR in every way... flavor, aroma, clarity, smoothness, head formation, etc.

[pkrone]

[positiveContact]

interesting stuff there.  I didn't know mash time was a factor on that.

[Big Nake]

I've never done 90-minute boils but I do seem to notice a difference between 60 and 30. I didn't realize that there was a connection between boil time and head formation. Now the question is... who here has been experimenting with shorter mash times? I always mash for 60 minutes and it's [almost] always a standard, single infusion mash. I check the pH and temp and when it's ready to go I put the lid on and I do not touch it for an hour and then I start my recirc & runoff. My guess is that the only suitable answer to the shorter mash time would be to "check it" with a refractometer or something so that you know. Would the makeup of the grist determine when a shorter mash time is okay? If I could shorten the mash time like I have shortened the boil time, I could rule the world!

[HVB]

I've never done 90-minute boils but I do seem to notice a difference between 60 and 30. I didn't realize that there was a connection between boil time and head formation. Now the question is... who here has been experimenting with shorter mash times? I always mash for 60 minutes and it's [almost] always a standard, single infusion mash. I check the pH and temp and when it's ready to go I put the lid on and I do not touch it for an hour and then I start my recirc & runoff. My guess is that the only suitable answer to the shorter mash time would be to "check it" with a refractometer or something so that you know. Would the makeup of the grist determine when a shorter mash time is okay? If I could shorten the mash time like I have shortened the boil time, I could rule the world!

I mash for 30m and then bump the temp to 165 and let that go for 15m and then call it good.  Denny has commented about doing I think a 20m mash and 20m boil with success.  My next change will be a 15m boil.

[Big Nake]

I mash for 30m and then bump the temp to 165 and let that go for 15m and then call it good.  Denny has commented about doing I think a 20m mash and 20m boil with success.  My next change will be a 15m boil.

Even knocking off 15 minutes by doing a 45m mash would be nice. If someone out there said that all modern malts easily convert in 30 minutes then I'd be willing to try it. We've been slaying a lot of homebrewing myths the last couple of years so my mind is always open.

[neddles]

I would give it a try if I were you Ken. Your typical grists contain a good bit of diastatic power and never anything that can be slow to convert such as flaked grain. However I would want to have some OG and FG data to see what is actually happening. And I know you don't ever measure gravity.