90 Minute Boil for Pilsner Malt...Is it Necessary??

[BlackDuck]

I like to have a Pilsner of some sort on tap most of the time. This past Friday, my brother and I stopped at Rockmill Brewery. They are a Belgian style brewery, and they make some really good stuff. They were releasing their brand new Belgian Pilsner in cans the next day, but it was available on tap. We both had a pint, and as expected, it was very well made. My brother asked if he could buy a couple of six packs since he was from out of town and we wouldn't be able to stop back the next day to buy some. The lady behind the bar called over a guy that worked there. We talked for a few minutes about the beer, I told him I was a homebrewer, and before he left he asked if he could get us anything else. So I said..."how about the recipe". I was kind of kidding, but in a way I wasn't. So he rattled off all the ingredients. Told me they brew with their spring water, which is rather hard, and they don't make any water adjustments. And the hard water is what makes it a Belgian Pilsner more than anything else.

So with all that unnecessary BS above, I've got a new recipe to work on. Which leads me to the main question. Do you really need to boil Pilsner malt for 90 minutes? I see so many lager recipes with Pilsner malt that are only boiled for 60 minutes. Hell, Briess even puts a Belgian Pilsner Recipe on their website, and they don't even have it down as a 90 minute boil. And I've seen AHA winning Pilsner recipes in Zymurgy that only boil for 60 minutes.

I normally boil my Pilsners for 90 minutes, because you have to get rid of DMS precursors, right????. But now I'm thinking that I'm wasting time on brew day, and I should just boil for 60 minutes. I mean, if Briess doesn't boil their own malt for 90, why should I??

So what do you all think?

[Dawg LB Steve]

All the things I have heard say that modern pilsner malts do not need that 90 minute boil anymore. My German Pils is somewhat 50/50 with 2 row and pilsner malts and only go 60 minutes and have not had DMS. I brew this one quite often.

[RickBeer]

I agree. Unless you have a less than vigorous boil, it should be a non-issue.

Edit - example - if you were living at a very high altitude, you would want to boil longer for every batch.

[Beer-lord]

Brulosophy has done experiments about this and though it's just a few experiments, it appears it's not necessary.
http://brulosophy.com/2015/09/14/boil-l ... t-results/

[Inkleg]

No. I don't think it's necessary with today's malts.
I've not done a 90 minute Pilsner boil in years.

[mashani]

The only reason I did a 100 minute boil for my pilsner beers in the Mash & Boil was due to me slow-chilling. If I was chilling faster I'd not worry about it and go with 60.

[John Sand]

I'm into my second sack of pilsner, I never do a 90 minute boil, often only 40.

[BlackDuck]

Thanks for the input everyone. Looks like the next time I do a lager with pilsner malt, it will be a 60 minute boil.

[ScrewyBrewer]

I think the case has been made often enough that 90-minute boils are not required for Pilsner malt recipes. I'm sure if there were any noticeable differences between a beer made using a 60 or 90-minute boil we would have heard about it. We are planning to do a Belgian Quad for a barrel aging project using Pilsner malt. And this topic came up. We ultimately left it up to the individual members but the majority favored the 60 minute boil.