The science behind No Chill

This thread isn't meant to be a discussion on whether the No Chill method works or doesn't. I haven't tried it, but many members and home brewers on more than on continent have proven it to work.

So why does it? Why does this method that seems to go against everything we were ever taught work so flawlessly? Why aren't all the no chill brewers drinking hazy beer that tastes like cooked corn/rotten cabbage and infected with botulism?

My guess is that most of the brewing texts older homebrewers referenced (IE Papa Charlie and JP) were written based on commercial production. On top of that, they were probably written for the commercial production of light lagers. I'm sure chilling quickly on a commercial scale is extremely important. Can you imagine how long even 20bbls of wort would maintain near boiling temperatures? I bet it would take a month for all of AB's wort to cool to pitching temperatures.

I'm willing to bet that modern chilling methods are based on the fact that commercial breweries originally wanted to reach pitching temperatures as fast as possible for quicker turnaround.

Granted this is all based on speculation. I have not done research on the history of chilling. Its kind of a chicken and egg situation. I think that commercial breweries ended up finding a benefit on larger systems (<20gallons) of fast chilling. Maybe even when lagers became commercially popular in Germany.

What are your thoughts? Am I completely off?

It makes sense. For thousands of years of brewing there was no quick way to chill the wort and they kept on drinking it. I would guess that the improvements have made the beer better and more drinkable, although if you look at an old(1600-1700) recipe book they don't sound really tasty either

Edd,

There is probably some truth to what you are saying. I mean, really who knows. It is like so many other things, as knowlege, equipment and materials evolve, so does the process and the product.

Some would argue that no chill is hazy and tastes like cooked corn, you just arent seeing it or tasting it... I am serious.

Maybe someone should ask one of the grandfathers of HB text to weigh in on the subject in the face of so much practical experience flying in the face of convention.

So, we need someone with a brewing science background to weigh in on this.

Are you saying that DMS is therefore, a boogeyman made up by commercial breweries, to justify the practice of quick chilling? I'm not buying it.

I am alternately convinced that DMS and slight haze are viewed by no-chill brewers as an acceptable, even desirable, "house" characteristic. Similar to certain commercial breweries who use clear glass bottles and whose customers expect a slight level of skunking, especially when counteracted by a slice of lemon or lime, or others who cultivate a small amount of diacetyl to achieve a buttery mouthfeel.

I am not really trying to be contentious here. Only a small percentage of tasters are able to pick up low levels of DMS anyway. And before it becomes distinctly corn tasting it actually adds a hint of malty sweetness to the brew. A plus in many circumstances or completely unnoticed in others, as in a very malty or hoppy brew. I had a training class where we added DMS drop by drop to a tasting glass of regular Budweiser and it actually improved the flavor at first. The thing was, there were only two of us in this class of around 16 people that could even taste the DMS until suddenly everybody was tasting creamed corn in the beer.


If you boil for 90 minutes and filter or fine with polyclar I would bet that you nearly eliminate the side effects of no-chill unless you are doing very light low hopped lagers.
As far as beers that were produced before quick chill was an option we are talking about a distinctly different time. We really have no clue how much DMS was in their beer but we sure do know that it was served quite cloudy even at cellar temps and for that reason there was no push to find clear glass vessels to serve it in. Only after there was clear glass was there a push to eliminate haze from beer.

I have to respectfully disagree with the cloudy "house" characteristic of no chill beer. Have you SEEN a no chill beer at 34F? There are a few photos here on HBT.

Have you ever brewed a no chill beer?

My no chills are EASILY just as clear as my IC'd beers of the past 4 years were. There is no "house" cloudiness. Then again, I have actually used the process.

Here is my cloudy "house character" beer

The Pol said:

Then again, I have actually used the process.

Click to expand...

snap.
I'm sure you were curious of how I got away with so few characters in the post. Pat yourself on the back for solving this mystery.

chefchris said:

snap.
I'm sure you were curious of how I got away with so few characters in the post. Pat yourself on the back for solving this mystery.

Click to expand...

I didnt solve a mystery... Aussies have been brewing this say for a decade or more as a normal process.

Having never used it I offer my opinion. No chill gives bacteria a longer time frame to inoculate the wort which in turn makes it harder for the slower growing yeast to get a strong foothold for healthy fermentation. It only makes sense to reduce the time spent in bacterias incubation temp range to reduce the chance of infection. I will not discuss Bigfoot.

beerthirty said:

Having never used it I offer my opinion. No chill gives bacteria a longer time frame to inoculate the wort which in turn makes it harder for the slower growing yeast to get a strong foothold for healthy fermentation. It only makes sense to reduce the time spent in bacterias incubation temp range to reduce the chance of infection. I will not discuss Bigfoot.

Click to expand...

I have had IC'd ferments take 72 hours to start, my no chills start in less than 72 hours. My glass carboy was not heat sanitized, my no chill fermentor is. This could be debated, but I think the OP made the point that this was not to be a debate on whether it works or not.

If it tastes good to you, no worries.

There are very well documented benefits of quick chilling, you can't really blame anyone for doing it.

In truth the scientific argument ( and you did ask for a scientific argument) is not that no chill beer will not clear, it is that no-chill will clear slower than beer that was chilled rapidly and which achieved a good chill break.

The explanation is in the size of the particulate matter. When beer is taken off the boil the proteins and other particulates can be as small as .7 microns. Through a verified scientific formula particulate matter of this size can take as long as 233 days of complete non agitation to fall 25 inches in solution. The simple act of CO2 being absorbed into solution is enough agitation to slow this process even further.

When beer is chilled quickly these same particulates will coagulate and bind together to form larger particulates - ~ 2-3 microns. Using the same formula these particulates will fall the same distance 5-7 times faster and be less susceptible to being roiled back into solution.

If you really want me to I can dust off the textbook and find the actual formula and the supporting experiments to properly, and scientifically, annotate these assertions. The fact is I believe your no chill beer is as clear as mine, at least in the first 5 or 6 weeks. Since I don't fine or filter mine I get a slight hint of haze that I believe is no consequence. After 5 to 6 weeks of a no chill and quick chill beer sitting side by side completely unagitated, I'm not so sure.

JKoravos said:

If it tastes good to you, no worries.

There are very well documented benefits of quick chilling, you can't really blame anyone for doing it.

Click to expand...

No one blames anyone for using either process. Again, back to the OP, this thread isnt supposed to be about IF it works.

What gets people fired up, is people that have NOT used a process making claims about it. I mean, that is like taking financial advice from a bankrupt neighbor.

dontman said:

In truth the scientific argument ( and you did ask for a scientific argument) is not that no chill beer will not clear, it is that no-chill will clear slower than beer that was chilled rapidly and which achieved a good chill break.
The explanation is in the size of the particulate matter. When beer is taken off the boil the proteins and other particulates can be as small as .7 microns. Through a verified scientific formula particulate matter of this size can take as long as 233 days of complete non agitation to fall 25 inches in solution. The simple act of CO2 being absorbed into solution is enough agitation to slow this process even further.

When beer is chilled quickly these same particulates will coagulate and bind together to form larger particulates - ~ 2-3 microns. Using the same formula these particulates will fall the same distance 5-7 times faster and be less susceptible to being roiled back into solution.

If you really want me to I can dust off the textbook and find the actual formula and the supporting experiments to properly, and scientifically, annotate these assertions. The fact is I believe your no chill beer is as clear as mine, at least in the first 5 or 6 weeks. Since I don't fine or filter mine I get a slight hint of haze that I believe is no consequence. After 5 to 6 weeks of a no chill and quick chill beer sitting side by side completely unagitated, I'm not so sure.

Click to expand...

I respect knowlege and science, but in practical useage of both IC chilling and no chilling, my beers clear in the same amount of time and both end up crystal clear. The time that haze is present and time to clear are identical.

I have honestly seen no difference in flavor, clarity or time to clear between the two processes. But, I am not the only one.

The beer in the photo was 4 weeks after brew day at 34F.

dontman said:

Are you saying that DMS is therefore, a boogeyman made up by commercial breweries, to justify the practice of quick chilling? I'm not buying it.

Click to expand...

I think you completely misread what I said. Commercial breweries are NOT making this up. But does it translate to lower volume homebrewing? They are brewing a LOT of beer. We are brewing 5-10 gallons. Some are doing 20-1bbl, but they are few and far between. If we are talking no chill, there is a significant time to chill from 212*F with 5 gallons of wort compared to the size of the smallest microbreweries (10-15bbl?). I think chilling vs. no chill manifests itself in that fact.

Think about it. Why would commercial breweries try to trick us by saying we HAVE to chill our beer fast? They have nothing to gain. I'm saying look at the history. What texts were Charlie Papazian and John Palmer referring to when they wrote their books? Most brewing texts are firmly rooted in the commercial production of lagers. Why? They are popular and very hard to brew consistently on a commercial level.

As a community at HBT, I'd say we are a few years ahead of the trend in popular homebrewing. The only people better than us are the Aussies. Thats because they dont give a **** what our lager science books say.

The Pol: I agree. The only way to know for sure is to get them to revisit the issue. I just hope John Palmer isn't stuck so far up the BN's ass and Jamil's whirlpool chiller that he would dismiss the idea, or even have a bias.

I am not going to make claims unless I have used it. If anyone here recalls, I started this in my brewery as a simple experiment, and I DID NOT expect a suitable result.

I dont know a lot about science, I dont always believe what I read either, books are always revised. What I do know is what I have done and experienced. Now, my experience gets discounted readily by some that have never had first hand experience with it... and I am okay with that.

I know if I grab a HB book from the 70's... I wouldnt be brewing like that anymore. Somehow each generation thinks they have it all figured out, and the following generation always proves them wrong.

dontman said:

In truth the scientific argument ( and you did ask for a scientific argument) is not that no chill beer will not clear, it is that no-chill will clear slower than beer that was chilled rapidly and which achieved a good chill break.

Click to expand...

I dont want to be an ass, but you are kind of proving my point. Chilling helps coagulate proteins. This helps for faster clearing of beer. That means it can be sold quicker, which in turn means a brewery can turn over more beer in "X" amount of time. Just like in my job (label printing), more throughput = more profit (as long as people buy it). For homebrewers, is this really an issue?

The Pol said:

I know if I grab a HB book from the 70's... I wouldnt be brewing like that anymore. Somehow each generation thinks they have it all figured out, and the following generation always proves them wrong.

Click to expand...

The Aussies are living testament to that. They completely changed dogmas in the wine world by not listening to the snooty French.

Edcculus said:

I dont want to be an ass, but you are kind of proving my point. Chilling helps coagulate proteins. This helps for faster clearing of beer. That means it can be sold quicker, which in turn means a brewery can turn over more beer in "X" amount of time. Just like in my job (label printing), more throughput = more profit (as long as people buy it). For homebrewers, is this really an issue?

Click to expand...

In a 5 gallon keg, it doesnt clear any faster either way. I assure you.

The Pol said:

What gets people fired up, is people that have NOT used a process making claims about it. I mean, that is like taking financial advice from a bankrupt neighbor.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of the controversial BYO article about batch sparging where the author dissed batch sparging without ever having sparged that way himself.

No chill seems to work. That's a fact. If the theory says it shouldn't then we need to extend the theory to include the observations made in no chill brewing.

DMS: not a problem w/ pale of darker malt. There is not enough DMS-P left in the cast out wort that could create problematic levels of DMS.

Contamination: except for botulism not many bugs can survive in the hot wort and the ones that got in before you close the cube will get pasturized pretty quickly.

Botulism: if it is a problem then only if the wort is stored for an extended time.

Haze: I don't know about that. The importance of quick chilling may have been overstated.

Kai

Kaiser said:

This reminds me of the controversial BYO article about batch sparging where the author dissed batch sparging without ever having sparged that way himself.

No chill seems to work. That's a fact. If the theory says it shouldn't then we need to extend the theory to include the observations made in no chill brewing.

DMS: not a problem w/ pale of darker malt. There is not enough DMS-P left in the cast out wort that could create problematic levels of DMS.

Contamination: except for botulism not many bugs can survive in the hot wort and the ones that got in before you close the cube will get pasturized pretty quickly.

Botulism: if it is a problem then only if the wort is stored for an extended time.

Haze: I don't know about that. The importance of quick chilling may have been overstated.

Kai

Click to expand...

Thanks Kai... from what I have read, which could be totally false, DMS precursors are only abundant in Pilsner malt, even 2-row pale is kilned dark enough to really make the DMS issue negligible. Throw in a 90-100 minute boil, and you are really mitigating the issue.

I was hoping you would show up Kai!

On the issue of haze. A lot of people (and even commercial breweries) use finings like gelatin or polyclar. Would I be safe to say that chill or no chill, crash cooling + post fermentation finings generally = clear beer?

The Pol said:

Thanks Kai... from what I have read, which could be totally false, DMS precursors are only abundant in Pilsner malt, even 2-row pale is kilned dark enough to really make the DMS issue negligible. Throw in a 90-100 minute boil, and you are really mitigating the issue.

Click to expand...

I think even Jamil backs this up, although he is a big proponent of quick chilling (using his special whirlpool chiller sold exclusively at Morebeer.com!!!!!!!!!!!!!.)

I dont use finings

Pol, have you done a side-by-side? I think that needs to be done and documented. Otherwise you'll keep getting the criticism you are seeing. What you have done so far is pretty much a proof of concept and the outcome was such that there are no big differences to a quick chill beer. Now we need to go a little further.

Kai

All right, all right! I give already. I enjoy a good discussion now and then is all I'm saying.

I would joyfully hoist a glass of the Pol's beer anyday and not think twice about whether it was no-chill or liguid nitrogen chilled or whatever. Reality is, since I started kegging my beers have taken a hit on clarity any way because of the reality of my house. I can only keep two kegs chilled and I do some serious roiling of any settled matter schlepping the kegs up and down from the basement when I change them out to get variety.

The only reason I have not been willing to try no-chill in this late era (and I was brewing before Papazian first published his book, so I am one of the stodgy old school folks you guys seem so ready to denigrate) is that I have known for a few years that I am especially sensitive to DMS and to Diacetyl, (and interestingly, almost not at all to oxidation.) and I wanted to avoid these things at all costs.

But oh yeah, just so you know, I was doing no-chill back before we even knew of a homegrown alternative. And we didn't call it "no-chill." For my first 50 or so batches, I boiled, put the lid on it and let it sit on the stove for a couple hours. Then I added a couple gallons of cold water and pitched. Never thought twice about it until Charlie published his book and then I stopped doing it that way.

Kaiser said:

Pol, have you done a side-by-side? I think that needs to be done and documented. Otherwise you'll keep getting the criticism you are seeing. What you have done so far is pretty much a proof of concept and the outcome was such that there are no big differences to a quick chill beer. Now we need to go a little further.

Kai

Click to expand...

Well, I have brewed my house ale with an IC 6 or more times. I have brewed that recipe no chill as well. I have done others but the house ale I used as my initial test because it doesnt cover up flaws.

To do a split batch is tricky as you will have different hop utilization in the no chill beer.

Here are a few things to consider:

The danger zone of temperature for microbial growth in wort is from around 80°F to 145°F. The longer it spends in that zone, the more risk there is of contamination. I look at it as similar to using store-bought ice to top off and chill the wort like Alton Brown did. It's a risk. You might get away with it time after time, but it poses a greater risk of a contaminated batch than if the wort was quickly chilled.

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, a poor cold break can leave more of three potentially negative constituents in the wort: excess proteins (chill haze), tannins (harsh aftertaste), and unsaturated fatty acids (poor foam stability). The levels of each of these, and whether or not they're noticeable, would likely vary batch to batch and brewhouse to brewhouse, which is why some brewers who try no chill, find it successful.

However, Briggs et al. has this to say on the subject of cold break in Brewing, Science and Practice:

The importance of cold break in brewing is disputed. There may be two main reasons for this; firstly the break in worts from different grists may have significantly different properties and, secondly, in some cases the cold break may be mixed with hot break that was not completely removed and so effects attributed to the cold break are, in fact, due to residual hot break. Some have reported that cold break has no influence on fermentation rate or beer analyses while others report that cold break accelerates the fermentation rate very significantly (Crompton and Hegarty, 1991; Dickel et al., 2002; Narziss et al., 1971; Rehberger and Luther, 1994).

Click to expand...

menschmaschine said:

Here are a few things to consider:

The danger zone of temperature for microbial growth in wort is from around 80°F to 145°F. The longer it spends in that zone, the more risk there is of contamination. I look at it as similar to using store-bought ice to top off and chill the wort like Alton Brown did. It's a risk. You might get away with it time after time, but it poses a greater risk of a contaminated batch than if the wort was quickly chilled.

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, a poor cold break can leave more of three potentially negative constituents in the wort: excess proteins (chill haze), tannins (harsh aftertaste), and unsaturated fatty acids (poor foam stability). The levels of each of these, and whether or not they're noticeable, would likely vary batch to batch and brewhouse to brewhouse, which is why some brewers who try no chill, find it successful.

However, Briggs et al. has this to say on the subject of cold break in Brewing, Science and Practice:

Click to expand...

Like Kai said, not much going to survive in a sealed container at near boiling temps. IMHO a heat sanitized wort in and heat santized container is less vulnerable than a wort chilled in an open kettle and placed in a glass carboy without heat sanitizing... that could be disputed.

There is the issue of MORE time to the start of fermentation, which again isnt wholly vaid. I no chill for 24 hours or less, then the ferment starts within 10 hours, that is 34 hours, that isnt bad at all. I have had other beers take 72 hours to show signs of fermentation. Now if you STORE your wort, this is different, but then again your motive is completely different as well.

I have not had chill haze in excess of what was in my IC chilled beers and the foam stability has been the same as the beer on the other tap that as IC chilled.

There are a crap load of variables, and I am no scientist, all I can say is what I see.

The OP was looking for WHY no chill works, seems all we have to offer is regurgitation on why it SHOULDNT work.

The Pol said:

Like Kai said, not much going to survive in a sealed container at near boiling temps.

Click to expand...

Unless the container is sealed perfectly, airborne contaminants have the potential to get in. I wouldn't consider a brew-kettle lid a perfect seal. Additionally, the contraction of the wort as it cools will draw air in due to the difference in air pressure outside the kettle.

I'm not saying no chill doesn't work by any means. I've never done it, so I have no first hand information. However, when I can't find one technical brewing text that promotes or condones it or indirectly explains that it would be an acceptable practice (is there any published information that does that I'm not aware of?), I'll consider it a risk that has the potential to negatively affect my beer. I put too much time and effort into my batches to take risks that reliable sources tell me I shouldn't take.

menschmaschine said:

Unless the container is sealed perfectly, airborne contaminants have the potential to get in. I wouldn't consider a brew-kettle lid a perfect seal. Additionally, the contraction of the wort as it cools will draw air in due to the difference in air pressure outside the kettle.

I'm not saying no chill doesn't work by any means. I've never done it, so I have no first hand information. However, when I can't find one technical brewing text that promotes or condones it or indirectly explains that it would be an acceptable practice (is there any published information that does that I'm not aware of?), I'll consider it a risk that has the potential to negatively affect my beer. I put too much time and effort into my batches to take risks that reliable sources tell me I shouldn't take.

Click to expand...

Who in the heck has been no chilling in an open container? Everyone here on HBT and on the Aussie boards that I have spoken to place it in a sealed container. Sealed, with a rubber seal, tight enough to suck the sides of the vessel right in when it shrinks and cools.

I have never seen anyone no chill in a kettle, that would be insane, thusly never seen anyone post anything about doing it that way.

The Pol said:

Who in the heck has been no chilling in an open container? Everyone here on HBT and on te Aussie boards that I have spoken to place it in a sealed container. Sealed, with a rubber seal, tight enoough to suck the sides of the vessel right in when it shrinks and cools.

I have never seen anyone no chill in a kettle, that would be insane.

Click to expand...

OK, OK... shows you how much I know about the details of no-chill.

menschmaschine said:

OK, OK... shows you how much I know about the details of no-chill.

Click to expand...

Some have contemplated letting the wort chill in the kettle, but have been gently guided in other directions.

I have chilled in the kettle once. It was winter and late at night. So I skipped the chilling and set the kettle outside covered with a lid. I racked in the morning and pitched the lager yeast. But the temp was still in the 60s. The resulting beer was not infected but not as clean as my other lagers. I'm willing to attribute this to warm pitching.

Kai