Cold Crashing????

A recommendation is fine. But telling people they will have a weak IPA, with low bitterness and aroma, by employing a 3-4 week fermentation/conditioning/dryhopping schedule is just plain false.
Stop speaking in absolutes and then maybe people won't call you out.

What you're referencing has more to do with time in the bottle. Like a 6 month old bottle of Pliny the Elder vs. one that was just bottled 2 weeks ago. No one is leaving their hoppy IPAs in their fermenters for several months so this flavor/aroma dropoff you speak of is not an issue.

drawdy10 said:

This is exactly why this forum frustrates me. Too many people that think they know it all, there is not one way to do it. Screw off if you think you have all the answers cuz you don't

Click to expand...

Am I missing something? All I see are a couple of people disagreeing with you. Unless some posts were deleted, I don't understand this reaction.

bobbrews said:

A recommendation is fine. But telling people they will have a weak IPA, with low bitterness and aroma, by employing a 3-4 week fermentation/conditioning/dryhopping schedule is just plain false.
Stop speaking in absolutes and then maybe people won't call you out.

What you're referencing has more to do with time in the bottle. Like a 6 month old bottle of Pliny the Elder vs. one that was just bottled 2 weeks ago. No one is leaving their hoppy IPAs in their fermenters for several months so this flavor/aroma dropoff you speak of is not an issue.

Click to expand...

Absolutes? I was said that you would be "hard pressed" to make something as good as your favorite commercial example if you do the longer process in my experiences.

There is no need to calling people out AT ALL. Apparently you take this too seriously.

Whatever dude... All I did was disagree with you. Take the stubborn defensiveness elsewhere. Just try not to mislead anyone else with your naive remarks about the correct processes of brewing a great IPA.

bobbrews said:

A recommendation is fine. But telling people they will have a weak IPA, with low bitterness and aroma, by employing a 3-4 week fermentation/conditioning/dryhopping schedule is just plain false.
Stop speaking in absolutes and then maybe people won't call you out.

What you're referencing has more to do with time in the bottle. Like a 6 month old bottle of Pliny the Elder vs. one that was just bottled 2 weeks ago. No one is leaving their hoppy IPAs in their fermenters for several months so this flavor/aroma dropoff you speak of is not an issue.

Click to expand...

I left an ipa in primary for 2 months and it did have noticbly less bitterness than what I was expecting. That was all my fault. Its still an awesome beer. I prefer my ipa's young. Everyone here needs to rdwhahb

I was about to say let´s get back on topic and I realized that this thread it´s more than 3 years old... I don´t understand what is all this arguing about.

MotorcycleMatt said:

I left an ipa in primary for 2 months

Click to expand...

That's a bit overkill.

bobbrews said:

That's a bit overkill.

Click to expand...

Disagreed.

Your prerogative ... just don't say it's the way to go or how everyone does it or should do it when it's obviously not.

It's ok, I've never actually brewed (and probably never will brew) an IPA. I'm just trollin'.

Phew...i'm exhausted just reading this....

ayupbrewing said:

Phew...i'm exhausted just reading this....

Click to expand...

I disagree

Text deleted

I just did for the first time on a stout. The advantages (so I have heard) are smaller bubbles and better mouthfeel. Disadvantage is a longer time to prime.

I'm sure there are more of both, I just don't know them.

I wondered the same thing. My thought is this: you need to cool quickly for multiple reasons.

1. The faster you cool, the less time you spend in a range where bacteria can take hold. As long as you don't actively cool, you may stay above a safe temp long enough to complete your steeping. A safe temp being like 168*f or so.

2. The faster you cool, the less time you spend creating some group of letters that I can't remember. MDS, maybe? All I know is that it is worse for a pilsner than other beers. There is a small window where the evaporation of this compound is reduced but it is still being created, so you want to get through this window quickly.

3. Cold break. This is probably the least critical as it affects only (as far as I have heard) the clarity of the beer. The faster you cool, the more proteins and other dissolved solids you can get out of solution.

I'm sure there are other reasons that I don't know and I am probably misspelling at least a little, so corrections are more than welcome.

I think you are thinking of DMS, and that is driven off by boiling longer and more vigorously.

bobbrews said:

That's a bit overkill.

Click to expand...

Life got in the way, and I forgot about it. Its still a tasty beer but I wouldn't call it an ipa. I like to go 2 weeks on my ipas and then force Carb in a keg

gcdowd said:

I think you are thinking of DMS, and that is driven off by boiling longer and more vigorously.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I knew it was something like that. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought it was created by the heat from the wort. As long as it was boiling, the DMS was being drive off as fast as it formed, but during cool down there is a period when it is still being formed but not driven off quite as fast. So if you stayed at a certain sub-boiling temp long enough, you could accumulate it.

Maybe my head is in my @$$...

freisste said:

Thanks, I knew it was something like that. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought it was created by the heat from the wort. As long as it was boiling, the DMS was being drive off as fast as it formed, but during cool down there is a period when it is still being formed but not driven off quite as fast. So if you stayed at a certain sub-boiling temp long enough, you could accumulate it.

Maybe my head is in my @$$...

Click to expand...

I understand the DMS does not form when the wort is below 140F. Its a reason some people like to use an immersion chiller prior using a counterflow device. I'm hoping for a convoluted chiller for Christmas but I think I'll still use my immersion chiller to get to 140. The immersion chiller is pretty efficient at getting down to that temp so I'm thinking the combo is the best way to go.

Any body have a time frame as far as how much longer it will take to carbonate bottles of beer after cold crashing? For the first time I cold crashed a Saison and it has been in bottles for atleast 2 and half weeks and the carbonation is next to non existent.

I usually have the most luck with 2-1/2 to 3 weeks at 70-72 F.

crzepilot said:

Any body have a time frame as far as how much longer it will take to carbonate bottles of beer after cold crashing? For the first time I cold crashed a Saison and it has been in bottles for atleast 2 and half weeks and the carbonation is next to non existent.

Click to expand...

It's going to depend a lot on the temperature they're at during carbonation.

I've just done it a couple of times recently but it's taken 3-4 weeks with the house at 67 deg (and colder at night). In the summer it should be significantly faster with my house temp up around 74 or so.

I've got my first lager carbing (with no yeast added at bottling) and I won't crack open one of those for 5 weeks, just to be sure. And it might take longer than that, I'm guessing. But I'll try one then.

I just opened an Irish Red that was at 3 weeks and it had just a tiny bit of carb to it. I'll try again at 4 weeks.

At least 3 weeks is the standard answer around here, and in my experience it's a pretty good one. I've had some that are "carbonated" before that point, but the carbonation continued to improve until later. I've had some that took longer, even with only moderate alcohol content (<6%) and as near the same conditioning temperature as all the others---in a closed closet at 70°F. I've had a couple that took close to 6 weeks (and one that never carbonated well, but that's because I undershot the priming sugar quantity trying for a low-carbonation ESB).

I keep hearing that a beer can be cold crashed and still have enough active yeast to carb up. It seems crashing requires a longer wait since there are less yeast cells? Some of the posts here speak of slow carb times, up to a month and such, but I have cold crashed a RIS and it's carbonation is not quite strong enough, and this is 36 days after bottling. Temp has been around 75, maybe as low as 70 overnight.


I understand a RIS takes more time to condition, mature etc.. but was wondering if cold crashing a stout is a waste of time. No need for clarity, for instance. I guess i'll forego the cold crash for a stout next time around and see if carb times are faster.

It really depends on your expectations for carbonation time. I've never asked a beer to be carbonated in less than a month or so, even for 4-5% beers. More than 36 days for a strong beer like an RIS doesn't strike me as remarkable. Some have been crashed (for up to a month in a couple cases) and some have not, and I can't say I see a strong trend one way or the other.

Crashing a stout is less "necessary" than a lighter beer, although I'll note that one can often distinguish whether even a dark beer is bright or murky. It can also mean less sediment in the bottles, at least in principle.

Your experiment is worthwhile. It seems logical that crashing would lengthen carbonation times, but you never know until you do a direct comparison. It'd be ideal to do a split batch, one crashed and one not, but that's probably not practical.

hey Zeg.. yes i did notice much (much!) less sediment in the bottles. the RIS is carbing good finally and the amount of yeast is just a whispy film.. unlike the 1/8" i have seen in other batches. so im saying that the clarity is better to me and my tastes than forgoing a cold crash. im thinking i'll cold crash every batch from now on. i have a wildflower honey red up next and just got ingredients for a quadruppel. the quad may NOT benefit from a crash? ill have to read and learn the best temps/practices for strong belgians. never brewed one.

There are certainly styles that benefit from some residual yeast... but I'm not a fan of those in general, so I tend to cold crash or at least give a long conditioning period before bottling.

Speaking of crashing, I just tried the first of a doppelbock that lagered for about 10 weeks and has been in bottles for about 6. It was absolutely crystal clear (if you held it up to a light strong enough to penetrate the deep dark brown) and I dumped the whole bottle into the glass without a trace of sediment.

After 6 weeks, though, it was clearly not yet carbonated. Between the relatively high strength (7.5% or so, I think) and the lagering, I'm not surprised. There was some carbonation, certainly enough that it was drinkable, but I expect more. Going to give the rest some more time. I'm curious to see how this will compare to the bock I just bottled, which had a bit over 3 months lagering and only a slightly lower alcohol content.

zeg said:

There are certainly styles that benefit from some residual yeast... but I'm not a fan of those in general, so I tend to cold crash or at least give a long conditioning period before bottling.

Speaking of crashing, I just tried the first of a doppelbock that lagered for about 10 weeks and has been in bottles for about 6. It was absolutely crystal clear (if you held it up to a light strong enough to penetrate the deep dark brown) and I dumped the whole bottle into the glass without a trace of sediment.

After 6 weeks, though, it was clearly not yet carbonated. Between the relatively high strength (7.5% or so, I think) and the lagering, I'm not surprised. There was some carbonation, certainly enough that it was drinkable, but I expect more. Going to give the rest some more time. I'm curious to see how this will compare to the bock I just bottled, which had a bit over 3 months lagering and only a slightly lower alcohol content.

Click to expand...

Hey Zeg, just curious how the carbonation came out for your Doppelbock..

Hey, good timing---I have been away for most of the last few months and just popped back the last week or so.

The carbonation on the DB came around. I don't know for sure how long it took, but it definitely got there. Still no discernible sediment. I'm pretty happy with it, except that it got to be a touch too hoppy. It got a 31 in the Indiana Brewer's Cup, which I'm happy with considering that it was mostly docked for being out of style. The brew day was nearly a disaster due to some still-unidentified problems (perhaps due to poor mixing of LME) leading to a seriously low OG reading, which I had to try to adapt to. To come out with essentially no true flaws was pretty good fortune.

My next beer was a maibock, using yeast harvested from the same batch as the DB yeast. That got forgotten in lagering for something like 5 months when I got busy. I was worried, but it carbonated even faster than the DB. By 4 weeks I think it had solid carbonation. Not much in the way of sediment there, either.

Thanks for the update. Haven't tried cold crashing yet, but am intrigued to do it for a batch in the future.

rorymcg said:

Thanks for the update. Haven't tried cold crashing yet, but am intrigued to do it for a batch in the future.

Click to expand...

If you have the means to do it, definitely cold crash a batch (I do 5-7 days @35-36*F in the primary). I racked a summer pale into the keg today that had been crashed for 5 days. It was quite clear plus the trub layer was nice and firm.

I've noticed no delay at all in carbonation when bottle carbing. I have seen that the amount of yeast in the bottom of each bottle is much less when I crash.

BigFloyd said:

I've noticed no delay at all in carbonation when bottle carbing. I have seen that the amount of yeast in the bottom of each bottle is much less when I crash.

Click to expand...

My beers so far usually take about 2-3 weeks for carbing. You think cold crashing would push that out a little bit? And do you store your bottles at a certain temp while they are carbing or just keep them at room temp?

Been cold crashing for 1 week at 33*F

[url=https://www.homebrewtalk.com/photo/papas-ipa-61149.html] [/URL]

[url=https://www.homebrewtalk.com/photo/ohikilolo-fest-61150.html] [/URL]

I cold crashed a bitter, took it off after two weeks because it was clearing so slowly... not worth the trouble. My bitter doesn't last long around here anyway, given that it's the beer of choice for most nearby family members.

It still bottle conditioned at a reasonable pace. I don't know how much yeast dropped out, I was trying to remove other forms of haze which got left in when I forgot my whirlfloc tablets.

Wow it's surprising how people feel about cold crashing.

If you have the ability to cold crash, you should do it. If you can do it for 1 day, or 3 days, at 45 degrees, or 33 degrees - do it. It only has benefits. The beer will be much clearer, and there are no negatives as far as bottle conditioning goes.

Use an S-style airlock. They are simpler, and have less (or zero) possibilty for suck-back causing water to drip into the beer while it's cooling.

It doesn't matter if some water leaks into the beer anyway. Someone said to replace the airlock with tinfoil, and that is just plain silly. Use an airlock that is properly filled with water and you have the no chance of contamination.

There was talk about IPA's earlier, and I gotta say that some folks are making blanket statements about this stuff. I've been brewing since '95 and am a complete, and total hop-head. IPA's can be awesome after several months - but only if it's well-brewed and has tons of hops in the first place. Practically every IPA recipe I see people post has the same exact cookie-cutter profile.. you know the one.. .5 ounces at 15, .5 at 10, .5 at 5, then maybe .5 at 0. Yeah - for those weak profiles I'd make sure I drink it as quick as possible, because it won't age well.

I once brewed a double IPA (5 gallon) that I purposely aged for a loooong time to see what would happen - and it had 1 ounce at 12 mins, 1 ounce at 8, 1 ounce at 4, 1 ounce at 2, then 5 ounces post boil (at 170 degrees) - plus 5 ounces of dry hops. I wanted to see what would happen with extended aging at 35 degrees.

I let it sit in the primary for about 17 days, cold crashed at 35 for 3 days, transferred to a keg and force carbed by shaking it, then just let it sit on the dryhops at that temp for 9 months!!!! and didn't even sample it. It was excellent. Perfect head retention, lacing just oozed slowly down the glass, and amazing clarity. The hops were still front and center, it had a good aroma, but it was, of course, more muted than if it had been drank really fresh. It had a high OG and high IBU's, and everyone loved it. One of the best beers I've ever made. It all depends on OG, and amount of hops and types of grains used.

I never cold crash.

It works fine for me, and my beer is ultra clear. I also don't use gelatin or other things in my beer.

I think this is one of those things that people can do, or not, and still get great results.

You can chill the keg, or the bottles, and get the same results as "cold crashing".

I do cold stabilize my wines that have a lot of tartaric acid that I want to precipitate out, but that's a whole 'nother ballgame.

Obliviousbrew said:

I was about to say let´s get back on topic and I realized that this thread it´s more than 3 years old... I don´t understand what is all this arguing about.

Click to expand...

HBT is a messaging forum. There will ALWAYS be arguing in any messaging forum.

If you don't agree with that... then buzz off...

Yooper said:

I never cold crash.

It works fine for me, and my beer is ultra clear. I also don't use gelatin or other things in my beer.

I think this is one of those things that people can do, or not, and still get great results.

You can chill the keg, or the bottles, and get the same results as "cold crashing".

I do cold stabilize my wines that have a lot of tartaric acid that I want to precipitate out, but that's a whole 'nother ballgame.

Click to expand...

I cold crashed once, all other times I don't t-fer to secondary or anything. My beers have come out just as clear and with minimal increased sediment at bottom of bottle. Careful siphoning is the best thing you can do imo, don't get greedy and try to suck all the way to yeast cake and really tip the bucket at a good 45deg angle while siphoning.

I discovered the benefit of cold crashing my IPA's.
I've brewed / bottled 9 batches of IPA to date. All 3 week primary, dryhop in primary and then bottle.

The first 3 batches turned out drinkable, but not that great.
Batches 4 and 5 were better, due mostly because I used more hops and I've learned to be a better brewer.

Batches 6,7 and 8, were cold crashed. These beers were considerably better. Partially for the same reasons 4 and 5 were better, but I believe it's also due to having less trub and sediment in the bottle.

The beers poured very clear with practically no sediment. Not like the black junk that sits in the bottom of the bottle in NON-crashed beers. The cold crash is dropping out the nasty stuff and it's not getting into my bottles.

My most recent batch #9, I chose to skip the crash and as a result, the beers again have that black sediment in the bottle. In the glass the beer is cloudy, darker than it should be and lacking the flavor that is should have. (This is repeat brew of the same recipe as batch 8.)

I am bottling a batch later this week and will definetly crash. I may decide to crash all my beers from now on, including the browns and belgians. Maybe the “home brew” flavor I get with my beers comes in part from the sediment in the bottle.

VonAle said:

I discovered the benefit of cold crashing my IPA's.
I've brewed / bottled 9 batches of IPA to date. All 3 week primary, dryhop in primary and then bottle.

The first 3 batches turned out drinkable, but not that great.
Batches 4 and 5 were better, due mostly because I used more hops and I've learned to be a better brewer.

Batches 6,7 and 8, were cold crashed. These beers were considerably better. Partially for the same reasons 4 and 5 were better, but I believe it's also due to having less trub and sediment in the bottle.

The beers poured very clear with practically no sediment. Not like the black junk that sits in the bottom of the bottle in NON-crashed beers. The cold crash is dropping out the nasty stuff and it's not getting into my bottles.

My most recent batch #9, I chose to skip the crash and as a result, the beers again have that black sediment in the bottle. In the glass the beer is cloudy, darker than it should be and lacking the flavor that is should have. (This is repeat brew of the same recipe as batch 8.)

I am bottling a batch later this week and will definetly crash. I may decide to crash all my beers from now on, including the browns and belgians. Maybe the &#147;home brew&#148; flavor I get with my beers comes in part from the sediment in the bottle.

Click to expand...

Have you tried using a fine mesh bag around your siphon? I dry hop in primary and don't cold crash and get zero trub in bottles. Just typical 2mm yeast that settles to bottom. I will say I had a Tripel that I had to stir up yeast cake on b/c SG was stuck, once at FG it was still very cloudy and yellowish. I knew I had to cold crash that, and was amazed at how it looked 4 days later...went from cloudy yellow to clear & dark. Cold crashing is good for certain conditions, but not necessary just for hop residue IMO.