No Chill Experiment

Here is a typical no chill beer... clarity not an issue. SNPA clone at 34F...

mmms - tasty.

So are we saying that chill haze is a booggieman? Obviously, if chill haze was real and if precipitating cold break mattered it would affect the beer. I just don't understand how the science matches to reality with this method.

Traditional wisdom says that precipitating proteins via hot and cold breaks is important and produces a more stable beer with improved head, clarity, stability, and in general better flavor.

So is the science wrong, are the assumptions wrong, or are certain styles not affected by these things? There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know where it is.

i didnt read the whole post... I would have just gotten a large rubbermaid garbage bucket and used that for fermenting.

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

Traditional wisdom says that precipitating proteins via hot and cold breaks is important and produces a more stable beer with improved head, clarity, stability, and in general better flavor.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be the first time TW led us astray in this hobby.

I know, but this TW is from scientific professional brewers. It is explained by chemistry and physical observations.

On the flip side, so is HSA and autolysis... I however still believe in those and take step to avoid them. IMO just because we can't taste something doesn't mean it isn't there. For example, autolysis is always present it is just the degree to which it affects the flavor of our beers.

My thoughts on NC brewing are that it may be a fine way to brew, but until I understand it and why the science is wrong about the benefits of chilling rapidly, I will not likely change my ways. Also, my chilling only takes about 15 minutes and uses about 15-20 gallons of water. I use more than that in cleanup anyway.

I dunno guys, this is a SNPA and I brewed my Haus Ale this way too... the same result. Clear as clear...

I just don't understand, that's all.

Well, I am no scientist... but I do enjoy practical applications of ideas. I dont know why this process seems to have little to no affect on the calrity... I just know that in practical terms, it doenst seem to.

I can read all day long, but in the end, some other guy wrote this stuff and I dont know if he actually TRIED it. So, I read it, then I try it... I go based on results, not printed words.

Hope this makes some ppl think twice about No Chill and clarity.

I think it would be silly not to at least consider it. I think the greatest benefit would be for people who travel to brew. It would be easier to take a cube home and pitch tomorrow than hassling with fermenters like I do now. That is a situation where it would make sense to me for sure, science be damned in that case.

The Pol said:

Just the issue of the vaccuum formed when it cools, plus the complete lack of headspace for fermenting. Both I am sure you can get around.

Click to expand...

Could you hit it with some CO2 and and build up some pressure to counter the vaccuum that forms and then transfer it to a carboy at a later date?

Austin_ said:

Could you hit it with some CO2 and and build up some pressure to counter the vaccuum that forms and then transfer it to a carboy at a later date?

Click to expand...

This has been considered... again, there are ways around it I am sure.

Not to get too far OT...

I think HSA and autolysis are the bigfoot and chupacabra of homebrewing.
*Maybe* they can happen, but the amount of time spent worrying about them far outweighs the actuality of them happening in homebrew. Kinda like someone who worries about being kidnapped, just doesn't happen enough to think about.
However, we have some luxuries that the Pros don't have. Such as, my beer never sits in a hot truck getting shipped cross country.

Back to the topic at hand, I *really* like the process improvement with no-chill. My brew day is much shorter, which means I can brew more easily on weekdays, and I'm not exhausted at the end of the brew day.
In the winter, when my tap water is 35F, I might chill some batches, but right now it's 58F, and it will peak over the summer at around 65-70F. It uses a ton of water and it's slow.
Use real wort for the starter is also a helpful process improvement for me. It means I don't have to plan as much ahead of time, and I don't have to buy spendy DME. I've been cutting the wort with boiled water to get around 1.035, so it's more yeast friendly. It does mean I need to be around a day or two after brew day.

Is the no-chill brew as good? I don't know that yet for me and my process, which is the reason for the direct comparison experiment.

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

I think it would be silly not to at least consider it. I think the greatest benefit would be for people who travel to brew. It would be easier to take a cube home and pitch tomorrow than hassling with fermenters like I do now. That is a situation where it would make sense to me for sure, science be damned in that case.

Click to expand...

I am by no means an expert in brewing, but perhaps more affects chill haze than simply the cold break. Maybe, and I'm speculating here, a good hot break or plenty of time in the fermenter at proper temps has more to do with preventing chill haze than rapid cooling to pitching temps?

I'm not saying the argument that rapid cooling of wort will prevent chill haze is wrong, but it is certainly a possibility that it (or our understanding of it as homebrewers) is incomplete.

gxm said:

Back to the topic at hand, I *really* like the process improvement with no-chill. My brew day is much shorter, which means I can brew more easily on weekdays, and I'm not exhausted at the end of the brew day.
In the winter, when my tap water is 35F, I might chill some batches, but right now it's 58F, and it will peak over the summer at around 65-70F. It uses a ton of water and it's slow.
Use real wort for the starter is also a helpful process improvement for me. It means I don't have to plan as much ahead of time, and I don't have to buy spendy DME. I've been cutting the wort with boiled water to get around 1.035, so it's more yeast friendly. It does mean I need to be around a day or two after brew day.

Click to expand...

Me too. WAF was also zero for an IC...

gxm said:

Is the no-chill brew as good? I don't know that yet for me and my process, which is the reason for the direct comparison experiment.

Click to expand...

Should be what? A week out or so from the first bottles? Or are you kegging?

MMW said:

Me too. WAF was also zero for an IC...

Should be what? A week out or so from the first bottles? Or are you kegging?

Click to expand...

WAF?

I kegged them Monday, and I'll give them at least 2 weeks in the keg, so 7/20 at the earliest.

gxm said:

WAF?

I kegged them Monday, and I'll give them at least 2 weeks in the keg, so 7/20 at the earliest.

Click to expand...

Wife Acceptance Factor

Can't wait on the results.

babalu87 said:

Where is the headspace in a 5 gallon plastic carboy?

Click to expand...

I don't ferment in my cube, I transfer to a bucket. I may start fermenting in a container like Pol's, but so far, so good.

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

Traditional wisdom says that precipitating proteins via hot and cold breaks is important and produces a more stable beer with improved head, clarity, stability, and in general better flavor.

Click to expand...

Plus it's commonly cited that precipitating the related proteins out of the beer via the cold break contributes to longer term stability.

Has anyone using this brewing method compared results out over a longer period (10-12 months+)?

brewt00l said:

Plus it's commonly cited that precipitating the related proteins out of the beer via the cold break contributes to longer term stability.

Has anyone using this brewing method compared results out over a longer period (10-12 months+)?

Click to expand...

Well, with beer as clear as seen in the photo, I am not sure that there are more protiens existing in my no chill beers than there are in traditionally chilled beers. I mean, if there were, youd be able to see signs that they actually existed at 34F. Wouldnt you?

The Pol said:

Well, with beer as clear as seen in the photo, I am not sure that there are more protiens existing in my no chill beers than there are in traditionally chilled beers. I mean, if there were, youd be able to see signs that they actually existed at 34F. Wouldnt you?

Click to expand...

I'd suspect as such but would still be curious. From what I understand, chill haze is the result of numerous factors and not just your chilling process...made up of proteins and tannis extracted in the mash, impacted by your boil intensity & chilling method, that bind together at lower temps to be visible.

Course, if your kegging and have your keg in the fridge for a period of time to carb/condition, those proteins and tannis are going to bind and drop, you've already precipitated the haze out of the beer & keg with those first couple pulls.

Is that a kegged sample?

brewt00l said:

I'd suspect as such but would still be curious. From what I understand, chill haze is the result of numerous factors and not just your chilling process...made up of proteins and tannis extracted in the mash, impacted by your boil intensity & chilling method, that bind together at lower temps to be visible.

Course, if your kegging and have your keg in the fridge for a period of time to carb/condition, those proteins and tannis are going to bind and drop, you've already precipitated the haze out of the beer & keg with those first couple pulls.

Is that a kegged sample?

Click to expand...

Yes it is a kegged sample... but a bottle sample would be the same, of course unless you pour all of the dregs out into the glass too, wouldnt it? I mean I used to bottle beer, and it still came out this clear, as long as I didnt pour all of the dregs out.

TW states that if you do not have a good cold break, these protiens will NOT drop out later when the beer is cooled, leading to chill haze.

Since there is no chill haze, the protiens went somewhere, and TW sayes that it shouldnt. Even my traditionally chilled beers, are hazy for a week or two in the keg until the crud drops out, it is inevitable. The no chill beers cleared the same, that is all I am saying...

The Pol said:

Yes it is a kegged sample... but a bottle sample would be the same, of course unless you pour all of the dregs out into the glass too, wouldnt it? I mean I used to bottle beer, and it still came out this clear, as long as I didnt pour all of the dregs out.

Click to expand...

Depends...When many people bottle, they keep them in a room temp place to carb and condition for a couple weeks. A handful of bottles hit the fridge at a time for consumption while the rest sit at room temp. How long are these beers generally hanging out in the fridge at temp? Many brewers who don't keg do not have the fridge space to keep entire multiple batches chilled from the time the beer is packaged through consumption.

The Pol said:

TW states that if you do not have a good cold break, these protiens will NOT drop out later when the beer is cooled, leading to chill haze.

Since there is no chill haze, the protiens went somewhere, and TW sayes that it shouldnt. Even my traditionally chilled beers, are hazy for a week or two in the keg until the crud drops out, it is inevitable. The no chill beers cleared the same, that is all I am saying...

Click to expand...

We have a radically different takes on this TW stuff. My first AG beer had chill haze (mash technique issues and no kettle finings). If the bottles were kept in the fridge for a few weeks before opening, they didn't exhibit the chill haze.

...not trying to invalidate this method, just trying to understand it fully.

Keg has been in the fridge for 4 weeks...

Takes time to carb. and condition.

My point is... so it takes 4 weeks to clear in the keg... it took just as long for my traditionally chilled beers to do the same, even when they were bottled.

Here's some departure with TW from BYO:

The clumps are slightly heavier than beer, so if the beer is kept undisturbed at refrigerator temperature for a few weeks, it will become clear again as the protein settles to the bottom of the bottle.

Click to expand...

Brew Your Own: The How-To Homebrew Beer Magazine - Techniques - Conquer Chill Haze

The Pol said:

Keg has been in the fridge for 4 weeks...

Takes time to carb. and condition.

My point is... so it takes 4 weeks to clear in the keg... it took just as long for my traditionally chilled beers to do the same, even when they were bottled.

Click to expand...

But what I'm saying is that your results don't necessarily prove that your no-chill beer didn't result in no chill haze since it had the opportunity to precipitate in those 4 weeks.

If someone bottles and doesn't keep them in the fridge for weeks before consumption, their results may be different.

brewt00l said:

But what I'm saying is that your results don't necessarily prove that your no chill beer didn't result in no chill haze since it had the opportunity to precipitate in those 4 weeks.

Click to expand...

Okay... I have time to say this one more time, as I have things to do.

The concern has been that any HAZE will not precipitate out, that the final product will be HAZY because there was no cold break.

My point is, the end product, looks and tastes the same.

If there is extra "haze"... it never makes it to the glass, because like all haze, it still precipitates out. The end product, for those that like crystal clear beer, is the same.

I used to chill my wort, so I am fully aware of the clearing process with chilled wort. My point is, this stuff takes no longer to clear, and is ultimately just as clear... as the chilled worts. Whether it STARTS OFF with more haze, would be hard to quantify. The concern for many who do not no chill thier wort, is that the beer will remain hazy... but it only remains hazy as long as a traditionally chilled beer will.

The Pol said:

Okay... I have time to say this one more time, as I have things to do.

The concern has been that any HAZE will not precipitate out, that the final product will be HAZY because there was no cold break.

My point is, the end product, looks and tastes the same.

If there is extra "haze"... it never makes it to the glass, because like all haze, it still precipitates out. The end product, for those that like crystal clear beer, is the same.

Click to expand...

Again, the point is that the proof you offer with that glass that no-chill brewing results in crystal clear beer w/o chill haze is invalid.

brewt00l said:

Again, the point is that the proof you offer with that glass that no-chill brewing results in crystal clear beer w/o chill haze is invalid.

Click to expand...

How is it not? Does that glass have haze? The concern, again... since I have repeated it like 4x... is that the beer will not clear. Apparently, it does. I never said that it NEVER had chill haze, and if you thought that was the point... well, I cannot help you. All HB has chill haze, the myth is that no chill, wont clear as others do. Apparently you missed the other debates? This thread never said that "no chill beer results in crystal clear beer", that is laughable. It stated numerous times that "no chill" beer DO clear, contrary to popular belief.

All normally chilled beers have haze, until they are chilled for a period. No chill, is no different. People have been told that no chill beers will NOT clear... apparently the 80's paperbacks are wrong.

It may begin with more protiens than normally chilled beers, again, that cannot be quantified. But the end product can be... because they both end up clear. The myth that no chill beers will not clear in the same time/temp frame that chilled beers will, is false.... wholly false.

Again, point to where I EVER stated that "no chill resutls in crystal clear beer"... I challenge you.

brewt00l said:

But what I'm saying is that your results don't necessarily prove that your no-chill beer didn't result in no chill haze since it had the opportunity to precipitate in those 4 weeks.

If someone bottles and doesn't keep them in the fridge for weeks before consumption, their results may be different.

Click to expand...

I agree - and before anyone accuses me of being cynical, let me put that to bed right now.

I appreciate that there is lots of experimentation with no-chill, but the contributing factors to chill haze are complex and often compounding, much like those regarding DMS formation. While cold storage does encourage the precipitation of proteins in ridding chill haze, rarely do bottlers store an entire batch in such a manner. The bottles are warm-conditioned, then popped into the fridge a few days or week before consumption. If there's chill haze to be had, it's going to show up in those circumstances. Under that scenario, a kegger has a bit of an edge in combating chill haze.

I'm more interested in the long-term stability of no-chill beers, as chill haze isn't just an aesthetic issue; unprecipitated tannins and proteins can also contribute to premature staling. Now, I'm not suggesting that all no-chill beers will suffer but it may be a worthy experiment for someone to undertake.

Dude, I am still reading my posts...

Cant find where I said "no chill results in crystal clear beer".

I think the only statement that I DID make was that the end product, looked the same.

This is why I spend less and less time on this board. You write one thing, and people decide to make it into something else that they can bi## about.

Keyboard commandos, you have the stage.

Cant find where I said "no chill results in crystal clear beer".

Click to expand...

The picture you posted of a 'typical' no-chill beer suggests that.

I'm not taking anything you said out of context, and I don't believe brewtool is either. I'm just interested in having a thoughtful discussion.

I want to know why you're drinking your beer at BMC temps!

I think we all agree that chill haze participates out with cold storage, end, and can move on.

Um, well if saying...

"typical no chill beer" translates into... NO CHILL "creates" haze free beer. Then I am guilty of making hanus claims... you are right. Although, I think that you are inferring MUCH more than I did. Still, I am guilty, my bad.

I was simply answering a question that has been posted in numerous no chill threads, where brewers were under the assumption that no chill beers WILL NOT clear. The actual concern was that the no chill beer would could not finish as clear, and therefore not be aesthetically pleasing. I posted this photo in that thread as well. There I go, trying to answer questions again with practical useage of technique.

Go here: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/exploring-no-chill-brewing-117111/index25.html
Read from post #250 on... this is where the whole issue of the aesthetic properties of no chill began. Thus leading to my post here as well, since there are two major "no chill" threads running concurrently.

As far as the science behind this sort of thing. Well, I am no scientist... but if I were my facts would not be based on theory alone. There would have to be experiments and data sets of course to justify any assumptions that were made prior.

Like I said in the other thread. I began this "no chill" thing just to test it... to see if it was viable. I have been doing it for 4 months, so that is as far as my experience goes. If anyone here has more time doing it than I, Id welcome thier input.

I have done charts for hop addition compensation. And I post only my own physical findings. I am no scientist, never claimed to be. I have read the books, I know what they say... and would have NEVER imagined doing this with my HB two years ago.

Long term stability... good question. Until there is a test run off the same batch, half chilled and half no chill, there will not be any physical proof either way. Most of my kegs are kicked within 4 months of the brew date, so that is as far as they get.

Is long term stability an issue if he protiens and such drop out, as they do in normally chilled beer? Is it more of an issue in bottled beer than in kegged... since the keg get cleared of these compounds when tapping the keg?

Good questions. There are just not enough people actively trying to find answers to them. If there are questions asked, and I have practical experience with them, then I will answer. I dont get on these boards and claim that anything is a fact, unless I have tried it. There is a lot of mis-information on this board, and plenty of "repeating what the other guy told me". I do not want to get into that... I only want to discuss facts. Anyone can specualte and be a "pro" speculator... but that doesnt yield results, because there is no physical evidence, otherwise it wouldnt be speculation.

JMHO

The proof is in the pudding.

If no-chill turns out to work, everyone will be asking why it wasn't done years sooner.

yeoldebrewer said:

The proof is in the pudding.

If no-chill turns out to work, everyone will be asking why it wasn't done years sooner.

Click to expand...

Well, it is like a lot of things, I suppose. Incomplete understanding of a process, which leads to mis-information, which is then perpetuated because you know, if it is in a book, it HAS to be true.

Legitimacy is given to things in print and such. Why people are not more skeptical of what they read and hear, I dont know. My neighbor swears he was an expert landscaper, why would I take his word for it? His lawn looks like hell. See what I mean... anyone can talk, but few have the physical evidence to back it up. Read the threads, you will see.

I'd submit that no chill was done years ago. Anyone wanting to read a lot more about it can do so on the Aussie Home Brew forum. And thanks, Pol. I had a glass (OK, two) of no chill last night . . . . the timing of hops additions you suggested worked quite well.

For purposes of discussion, what styles (and relatedly, the grist) have been successfully brewed utilizing the no-chill method?

It seems that everyone is fixated on clarity, but what about long-term stability (for beers that continue to mature like barleywines)? Given that the vast majority of HB is consumed quickly (say, within 2-3 months of brew date), I suspect that we're not getting a complete picture.