Rethinking Chilling

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Beer_Guy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
616
Reaction score
7
Location
Lubbock, TX
[First I want to take sanitation out of the equation and let us assume that this is all done in a sanitary environment.]

We all know that leaving hops in HOT wort too long affects their contribution to the final product. But is cooling TOO fast affecting the mouth feel of the final product?

A question for those who use a Reverse Flow Chiller:
Do you see more trub in the primary after fermentation than when you used cold water through a submerged coil of copper tubing for chilling?

If so then is cooling down done too fast affecting mouth feel by converting proteins into weird structures which settle out of the finished product? If so then a regulated cooling may be helpful with that.

Having said all that, we need to know at what temp the cold break happens and at what temp hop profile changes continue to happen.

If the cold break temp is below the temp that hop profile changes happen, I have an idea.

The plan:
Boil wort as normal.
Rapidly cool wort to below whatever the temp at which hop profile changes happen.
Slowly cool wort from there down to pitching temp to prevent any harmful cold break.

If this makes sense then a shorter Reverse Flow Chiller calculated to reduce temp to just below hop utilization temp combined with a Submerged Chiller to then slowly lower the wort temp to final pitching temp would be ideal.

Any thoughts?
 
Since I've only ever used a CFC, I'm not sure how to compare. And I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a harmful cold break. I can see where you get the idea that leaving those proteins in the finished beer might modify mouthfeel, but I'm not sure how great the effect really is.

I think that the majority of the proteins settle out during the fermentation stages, but I suppose there is potential for very small particles to remain (giving chill haze).
 
We all know that leaving hops in HOT wort too long affects their contribution to the final product. But is cooling TOO fast affecting the mouth feel of the final product?


We all know this? I've never heard this. It kind of goes against the whole needing boiling temps to isomerize the alpha acids idea, that we all do know. I really don't know what you are getting at.
 
Revvy, come on....

Most recipes say flavor hops boil time = 10 Minutes or so

According to a chart here somewhere, a flavor hop boil gets only 20% in 10 minutes. It does not hit peak flavors till 20 minutes into boil.
Why not boil flavor hops for 20 minutes and use 80% less hops?
I thought we boil for 10 and more flavor comes out during the early cooling down time.

Am I wrong?
 
Revvy, I think that he's talking about how you need to adjust your hop schedule if you plan on doing no-chill....
OK REVVY, so why would you need to do this in a no-chill if hop usage is ONLY done during a hard boil?
 
Funny most beer recipes I see call for a 60 minute boil for bitterness, then some combination of shorter term additions for aroma and flavor. And if you are first wort hopping you could potentially have hops in your kettle for 2 hours, if you are doing a 90 minute boil for pilsner malts/dms, and chilling.

You could be doing a huge beer and boiling for 5 hours or more with hops in there, for a barelywine.

And if you dump your kettle into your primary, with trub, break, and all you've got hops in there for up to a month if you long primary.

I still am missing something here..........or more than likely you are......

If you have a reference for your original statement that "everyone knows," post it, maybe we can clear this up. You might be mis-interpreting something.
 
I still think the OP is referring to the fact that an identical hop schedule on two different beers (one chilled rapidly, one not) will produce different hop utilization.

from a different thread....

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/no-chill-hop-utilization-125844/#post1403863

For future reference I think this chart tells most of what I needed to knwo:

No_Chill_Hop_Adjust.bmp



Search never cease to fail me here...
 
That chart has at least one issue--FWH imparts about 10% more IBUs than a 60 minute addition, per the numbers Denny Conn ran and had tested in the lab. It's not going to replace a 10-15 minute addition well.
 
Revvy, he didn't say utilization, which typically does refer to IBUs. He said, "leaving hops in HOT wort too long affects their contribution to the final product." If "contribution" includes aroma, then he's not only talking about isomerization, but also volatile aroma compounds being driven off.
 
The plan:
Boil wort as normal.
Rapidly cool wort to below whatever the temp at which hop profile changes happen.
Slowly cool wort from there down to pitching temp to prevent any harmful cold break.


Any thoughts?

This is what I do. My reason is so i do not have to deal with guessing on adjusting hopping. Plus its incredibly easy to get wort down around 100* and doesn't require a ton of water. Time investment is low too.

I've chilled all the way to pitching temps once. I noticed more protiens at the bottom of the fermenter rigth away. I have since made that beer again with the new partial chill. I notice NO differences in hop flavor, chill haze, bitterness, mouthfeel. Essentially I was able to make the beer again, i was happy with that. I am too inexperieced though to look to deeply into that. I've only made 10 batches or so, so far. My palate isn't very picky either.

Personally I do not believe in "cold break" affecting mouthfeel negatively. I also think that in time all the protiens that are gonna settle out will, regardless of how fast you chill. Just one man's opinion. I crash cool most of my beer before packaging and it does wonders.

Regardless I would think you are really splitting hairs, my beer is good, I'm happy. My chill method was chosen for convenience, with no percieved differences(to me).
 
Here is the post that got me on this subject:
Proteins have defined levels structure ranging from primary, secondary, to tertiary. Some even have multi-complex quaternary structures. Depending on the heat addition and acid condition sof the word proteins can unfold into their secondary and primary structures(think of it like a ribbon). When you drop the temperature proteins can spontaneously fold back to their original form or whatever structural form is at the lowest energy state. In the case of dropping the temp very quickly you don't give the proteins the 'chance' to spontaneously fold back to their original form, which may be water soluble, so that they will coagulate together into the lowest energy form and precipitate together rather than as individual parts out of solution as a mass.

That's my best guess, but I'll read more and try to let you know.

Thats my best guess.
I brewed a 1554 clone with almost 1.5lbs steeping grains last week. When I cooled it, I dropped in a little ice to get it down quicker. I had a LOT of cold break. Too much I think for an extract brew. I fear I may have TOTALLY negated the purpose of the steeping grains.

It will still be beer, but will it be a 1554 Clone.
 
IMO your over thinking it, since the level of proteins can vary with the grain used to make the extract and the steeping grains, the amount that settles out from the cold break will vary too.

in a real world comparison for mouth feel, I recently did side by side two of my imperial red ales one i used with Whirlfloc and one with out (it removes a ton more protein) and the mouth feel was identical. the only noticeable difference was haze. So if Whirlfloc has a negligible effect on mouth feel, i would find it hard to believe that CFC chilling would have any noticeable effect.

The only way you could truly know would be to brew and do a side by side your self.
 
If so then is cooling down done too fast affecting mouth feel by converting proteins into weird structures which settle out of the finished product? If so then a regulated cooling may be helpful with that.

Having said all that, we need to know at what temp the cold break happens and at what temp hop profile changes continue to happen.

Slowly cool wort from there down to pitching temp to prevent any harmful cold break.

If this makes sense then a shorter Reverse Flow Chiller calculated to reduce temp to just below hop utilization temp combined with a Submerged Chiller to then slowly lower the wort temp to final pitching temp would be ideal.

Any thoughts?

First off, since there is no proven or discussed harmful affects to cold break that I have read or heard discussed in common forums. You may want to start off by running parallel experiments with fully chilled and partially chilled worts to see if you can detect any deviations in the finished product.

As to at what temp cold break happens; I can't say where it starts, but there is not a fixed point. The colder you quick chill the wort, the more break you will get.

A while back the White brothers (White Labs Yeast) conducted some experiments with yeast fermentations and hypothesized that the yeast may actually use some of the break material as food and nutrient. They used wort with the hot and cold break left in it, and wort where they filterred most or all of the break material from and monitorred the yeast during fermentation. They found heavier activity and more yeast vitality in the fermentors with the break left in them. As I recall the experiment was a preliminary one without a high level of control, so the results pointed towards a general conclusion, but not in an absolute sense as they had not controlled the experiment enough to completely rule out other variables.

As to some of my experience. I make a few high gravity high hop beers ie IIPA. When I make these I inevitably have wort that is just swimming with break material and pellet hop particles. I have had fermentors where after an hour in the carboy there is a layer 6 0r 8 inches deep of settled out break and hops. When these beers are finished fermenting I end up with right around the same dense trub mass as other beers. This leads me in the direction to agree that the yeast must be uptaking some of it. I realize it compacts, but going from 8 inches to 1 or 2 inches just from settling seems unlikely.
 
…
A while back the White brothers (White Labs Yeast) conducted some experiments …
(To save bandwidth I shortened your post, but it is great information.)

THANK YOU Zen_Brew!!!!

You have relieved my stress concerning my 1554. If the yeast are eating the extra proteins in the break, whether they come out in a cold break or not, then my brew may be fine and this WHOLE thread is not relevant.

The only slight change might be either a lower ABV or a slower yeast population buildup. I can live with those. I drink for taste, not to get numb and the brews took off a little slow but were fermenting fine within 24 hours.
 
Back
Top