Cold break question

Regarding the chilling process after boiling the wort.


After reading "Beer Craft by Bostwick & Rymill pg. 38....Cold Break. Just like with the hot break, the faster you go, the more protein will settle out and the smoother your beer will be."

Does the rate at which you cool down the wort affect how many or what types of proteins will settle out?

Wouldn't the temperature be the contributing factor...not rate?

Temp matters most if you chill the wort really cold, like down to slush. Since most of us only chill to maybe 50* at the low end, the rate of cooling will have a big impact on how much cold break you get.

That said, I've read in some sources that hot break is the problematic one, flavor-wise, and some amount of cold break left in the wort will provide greater yeast health. So, I dunno.

here's an interesting graph on cold break I found online

Does anyone have access to Hough et al. 1982 to see how the experiment was conducted and how the data was collected

Anyone know about rate?

Let me rephrase the OP's question....

If I were to boil 2x five-gallon batches, in order to toss in a 10-15 gallon fermenter.... and I only have 1 kettle to boil with... then is "rapid cooling" all that necessary???

In particular, if I don't have a wort chiller.... where is the harm in letting the wort just air cool inside the kettle for an hour or two and then toss it in the fermenter, where I'd subsequently pitch the yeast????

Or is there any harm at all from such a process???

My belief is that the wort chiller is an overrated piece of equipment, and it is causing us to lose at least 3 beers or so by tossing the wort chiller in the boiling wort to sterilize it.

grndslm said:

If I were to boil 2x five-gallon batches, in order to toss in a 10-15 gallon fermenter.... and I only have 1 kettle to boil with... then is "rapid cooling" all that necessary???

Click to expand...

If you have any late hop additions, they'll continue to isomerize as long as the wort is hot, though not as quickly as during the boil. You'll need to account for this if you're not chilling.

A lot of people use the "no chill" method, but I've yet to see an objective evaluation of whether it actually makes better beer than the chill method. It's mostly people saying "I make my beer this way, and it's awesome!" with nothing else to back it up.

bdbart said:

Does anyone have access to Hough et al. 1982 to see how the experiment was conducted and how the data was collected

Anyone know about rate?

Click to expand...

That would be Malting and Brewing Science. I have that at my office. They don't typically present methodology in that text book. It might be taken from another reference that was cited in the book, so all hope is not lost.

Off hand, I'd say that they just set up a plate chiller unit with enough cooling capacity that they could cool the wort to what ever final temp they wanted and then placed the sample into an Imhoff Cone to see the sediment volume or passed the separated wort through a paper filter.

I wouldn't put an assumption on the exactness of the results. I'd take it as a relative performance with respect to the chilling capacity you have, want, or need.

grndslm said:

My belief is that the wort chiller is an overrated piece of equipment, and it is causing us to lose at least 3 beers or so by tossing the wort chiller in the boiling wort to sterilize it.

Click to expand...

Off topic but........

How are you losing 3 beers by adding the chiller to the kettle? You lose no beer by using an immersion chiller.....

A plate chiller you maybe lose a beer or two from what is left in the chiller/tubing/pump .......

Small price to pay to have your brew day end five minutes after flame out IMO.

Immersion chiller you are at pitching temp 10-15 minutes after flame out.

I am just not a fan of leaving things out and sitting around for hours. I like to have the whole process done, pitched, and cleaned up all at once.

Chillers are awesome.

To the op's question, i havent noticed a difference in 20/15/10/5 minute chill times as far as taste or clarity goes........

My beers were perfectly clear when chilled in 15-20 minutes with an immersion chiller. I cant speak to whether a no chill beer is any less clear than a beer chilled in 15 minutes.

But between 20 minutes and 5 minutes i noticed no difference (nor did i expect there to be any difference)

SamuraiSquirrel said:

A plate chiller you maybe lose a beer or two from what is left in the chiller/tubing/pump .......

Click to expand...

No need to leave any beer in the chiller or hoses. Just push it out with boiled water.

Before I got a chiller I used to have a huge drama with chill haze, after getting an immersion haven't had a drama.. now moved onto a plate and its worth its weight in gold.. you save those three lost beers in what you would have drunk waiting for the batch to chill lol

grndslm said:

Let me rephrase the OP's question....

If I were to boil 2x five-gallon batches, in order to toss in a 10-15 gallon fermenter.... and I only have 1 kettle to boil with... then is "rapid cooling" all that necessary???

In particular, if I don't have a wort chiller.... where is the harm in letting the wort just air cool inside the kettle for an hour or two and then toss it in the fermenter, where I'd subsequently pitch the yeast????

Or is there any harm at all from such a process???

My belief is that the wort chiller is an overrated piece of equipment, and it is causing us to lose at least 3 beers or so by tossing the wort chiller in the boiling wort to sterilize it.

Click to expand...

I don't think a chiller should be considered "overrated"!

Is a chiller necessary for brewing of course not however, would you want to leave all that "stuff" in your beer when you could very easily precipitate it out by rapid chilling?

Not to mention as samurai said, you end your brew day a whole lot faster!

KevinW said:

I don't think a chiller should be considered "overrated"!

Is a chiller necessary for brewing of course not however, would you want to leave all that "stuff" in your beer when you could very easily precipitate it out by rapid chilling?

Not to mention as samurai said, you end your brew day a whole lot faster!

Click to expand...

+1 on "not over rated"

Added point: 2 hours to slow chill in the kettle? More like 6 or 8 (min.) in my experience.

I used to ice bath the kettle (20 mins) in the tub to cool, bought a chiller and do NOT regret it. Now it takes 5 mins to chill 5 gallons to 70F.

$30 makes you an immersion chiller (buy one for $40ish)

SamuraiSquirrel said:

Off topic but........

How are you losing 3 beers by adding the chiller to the kettle? You lose no beer by using an immersion chiller.....

Click to expand...

Umm..... "you lose no beer by using an immersion chiller"?? ... yet you're "adding the chiller to the kettle"??

Does not the immersion chiller DISPLACE the contents of the kettle???

I think it does. In fact, I know it does.

SamuraiSquirrel said:

Small price to pay to have your brew day end five minutes after flame out IMO.

Immersion chiller you are at pitching temp 10-15 minutes after flame out.

Click to expand...

I've used an immersion chiller and it sill takes 20 minutes. A water bath that's flushed in the sink, with a little bit of ice in that bath for the last (6th?) flush.... also took me about 20 minutes. Yes, the immersion chiller was "uninvolving"... but pehaps a water bath in the bath tub will leave me to flushing only once instead of six times????

SamuraiSquirrel said:

To the op's question, i havent noticed a difference in 20/15/10/5 minute chill times as far as taste or clarity goes........

Click to expand...

That's precisely the point of chilling, however... is to "lock in" the aroma and flavors.

Some people say isomerization stops when boiling stops. Some say it continues in warmer temps.

The real reasoning behind a wort chiller is NOT for "cold break", but to lock the flavor in.

If I toss the kettle in a bath tub with cool water, and possibly flush it out one more time.... cooling it to the same temp as an immersion chiller..... then the cold break will identical, regardless of how long it takes to chill.

The only time that TIME is a factor of chilling comes down to locking in flavor/aroma. And for that.... a bath tub would take me just as long to cool down as a chiller. The DIFERENCE between the bath tub and the immesion chiller is that the immersion chiller DISPLACES three [or more] brews from making it into th fermenter.

grndslm said:

Umm..... "you lose no beer by using an immersion chiller"?? ... yet you're "adding the chiller to the kettle"??

Does not the immersion chiller DISPLACE the contents of the kettle???

I think it does. In fact, I know it does.

Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense. Where do the beers go? Does your kettle overflow when you add the chiller?

Nateo said:

That makes absolutely no sense. Where do the beers go? Does your kettle overflow when you add the chiller?

Click to expand...

Obviously the wort just floats away into the clouds, duh.

Kettle holds 5 gallons.

Immersion chiller INSIDE the kettle means that LESS THAN 5 GALS of wort can possibly be inside.

People might have larger kettles, but ours is right at the limit.

EDIT: And of course the kettle doesn't overflow. The kettle never has the beers that the wort chiller displaces, because I know that the wort chiller displaces X amount. "Duh."

grndslm said:

Kettle holds 5 gallons.

Immersion chiller INSIDE the kettle means that LESS THAN 5 GALS of wort can possibly be inside.

People might have larger kettles, but ours is right at the limit.

EDIT: And of course the kettle doesn't overflow. The kettle never has the beers that the wort chiller displaces, because I know that the wort chiller displaces X amount. "Duh."

Click to expand...

You are much better off losing a few beers than not using a chiller. Less chance of DMS and clearer beer. Win. Win.

Yeah, with a 5G kettle you should probably do a partial boil with 2.5 or 3G to avoid boilovers and have room for the chiller. Then top up to 5G.
Then save up for a ~10G pot!

Yeah, just get a bigger kettle.

Never mind - didn't see all the on-point replies...

Cheers!

grndslm said:

Kettle holds 5 gallons.

Immersion chiller INSIDE the kettle means that LESS THAN 5 GALS of wort can possibly be inside.

People might have larger kettles, but ours is right at the limit.

EDIT: And of course the kettle doesn't overflow. The kettle never has the beers that the wort chiller displaces, because I know that the wort chiller displaces X amount. "Duh."

Click to expand...

For a 5 gallon batch, my pre-boil volume is about 7 gallons. How can you possibly be doing 5 gallon batches in exactly 5 gallon kettles?

Nateo said:

For a 5 gallon batch, my pre-boil volume is about 7 gallons. How can you possibly be doing 5 gallon batches in exactly 5 gallon kettles?

Click to expand...

Its two five gallon batches in five gallon pots with no chill in between for a 10-15 gallon fermenter. Get it right. I don't know.

jeepinjeepin said:

Its two five gallon batches in five gallon pots with no chill in between for a 10-15 gallon fermenter. Get it right. I don't know.

Click to expand...

So this hillbilly woman delivers her 14th baby and goes to see the doctor. The doctor tells her to prevent getting pregnant again she should sleep at night with both feet in a 10 gallon crock. Woman comes in 6 weeks later and sure enough she is pregnant again. The doctor asks what happened didn't you follow my instructions. The woman replied, well I tried but we didn't have no 10 gallon crock so I used two 5 gallon ones.

moral of the story use a 10 gallon pot for 5 gallon batches or you will get pregnant and have 15 kids.....or some such ^%*&!

Nateo said:

For a 5 gallon batch, my pre-boil volume is about 7 gallons. How can you possibly be doing 5 gallon batches in exactly 5 gallon kettles?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly how large the kettle is, as I didn't buy it.

I'm just the brewmaster.

All I know is that our first three batches used the immersion chiller, then racked the wort to the ale pale bucket, then racked the wort almost to the top of our 5 gallon carboys.

On our last three batches, using the same immersion chiller, racking the wort to a 6 [or 6.5?] gallon carboy, and then racking the wort to the SAME EXACT 5 gallon carboys has made us lose a few beers.

That doesn't seem possible, but that's what's happened. Only thing that changed is the primary fermenter, but we're losing beer because of it.

The 6th batch, which was the very last batch... had wort topped off in the kettle. When chilling in the sink for 20 mins [with NO immersion chiller], racking that wort, leaving behind the cold break, we had 6 gallons exactly in the carboy.

So I guess the kettle has enough room to boil 6 gallons of wort, plus a few oz of cold break. That's it.

If chilling in 5 minutes is no different from chilling in 20 minutes.... then is there a difference between chilling in 20 minutes in a sink, versus chilling 60 minutes in a sink without flushing???

bdbart said:

Regarding the chilling process after boiling the wort.


After reading "Beer Craft by Bostwick & Rymill pg. 38....Cold Break. Just like with the hot break, the faster you go, the more protein will settle out and the smoother your beer will be."

Does the rate at which you cool down the wort affect how many or what types of proteins will settle out?

Wouldn't the temperature be the contributing factor...not rate?

Click to expand...

Cooling rate will affect the precipitation of proteins. After boiling there are some proteins that are still left in solution (dissolved). Most of these will not be in their preferred, folded-up shape (where they are nicely soluble- mostly). As the wort cools, the proteins will slowly fold back into their preferred shape - the key is slowly cool. Slowly but surely as the wort cools, through random motion, the protein will "find" the correct way to fold up. Now if you cool too fast (from the protein's point of view), it doesn't have time to fold up the correct way which alters it's solubility. (kinda like my wife folding up the sheets nicely, versus me quickly wadding them up in a ball)

Now as to the comment that the more protein that settles out, the smoother your beer will be, this I'm not sure about. In my mind beers with more body are smoother. Unfermentable dextrins contribute to body, but so do proteins (hence the statement to be careful with protein rests so you don't end up with a thin beer). So to me it seems, more protein = more body = smoother. One has to be careful though as more protein can also lead to more haze. That being said, it might make a difference WHAT proteins. Proteins are not necessarily flavor neutral so there could be some harsh tasting proteins