Cooling the wort is unnecessary

[Octavius]

I propose that, for begining homebrewing, force-cooling the wort is an unnecessary step.

Most everybody seems to think that, after boiling with hops, the wort should be cooled down immediately - for the following reasons:

1. Less chance of infection because the yeast is added sooner
2. Less chance of DMS condensing into the wort
3. No chill haze because force cooling initiates a "cold break"

My experience with low to medium gravity beers, up to say an OG of 1.045, and allowing the wort to cool until the next day:

1. The beer has never had an infection
2. The beer never tastes of cooked corn or spinach (DMS)
3. Who cares about a chill haze? Nowadays good commercial beer is cloudy

The benefits of just putting the lid on the pot (and wrapping around with some aluminum foil) are as follows:

1. Actually LESS chance of infection
2. The beer workday can be shortened considerably. Next day, just pour into fermentor.
3. Less expensive equipment to buy, clean, maintain and worry about

Please note, I am only proposing this - I would be most happy if someone can convince me otherwise.

As always, Cheers!

 

[HOOTER]

I have yet to hear a legitimate argument as to why it is actually better not to cool the wort. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner fermentation begins the better. How does not cooling the wort actually reduce the chances of infection? This makes no sense to me, but maybe I haven't heard all the facts.

I'm not convinced this method has any benefit beyond saving a little time and money. If it works for you, go for it.

 

[Msbeer]

You just may have something there. I am a small batch brewer myself and I get my wort down in the 80's or 90's with water bath. I then put the wort in my little keg and set it in the refrigerator to get it in the 60's before I pitch my yeast.

I keep my keg in a canvas cooler bag and try to maintain temps with frozen Gator Aid Bottles. When the temps get up to the 70's I just put the keg in the refrigerator for a half hour or so and it brings it right back to the 60's. When the fermentation has stopped in about 10 days I let it get in the 70's a day or two before I bottle. I have brewed over ten batches and have not had a bad brew yet.

One thing is I am very anal about sanitation.

After I bottle my beer and wash my keg I sanitize my keg with the Star San I used to Sanitize my bottles and then I sanitize it again when making my next batch.

 

[chefchris]

You're not the only one. There's some very good threads on here on no chilling. Just do a search.

 

[-TH-]

what about over-utilization of hops?

 

[The Pol]

I propose that, for begining homebrewing, force-cooling the wort is an unnecessary step.

Most everybody seems to think that, after boiling with hops, the wort should be cooled down immediately - for the following reasons:

1. Less chance of infection because the yeast is added sooner
2. Less chance of DMS condensing into the wort
3. No chill haze because force cooling initiates a "cold break"

My experience with low to medium gravity beers, up to say an OG of 1.045, and allowing the wort to cool until the next day:

1. The beer has never had an infection
2. The beer never tastes of cooked corn or spinach (DMS)
3. Who cares about a chill haze? Nowadays good commercial beer is cloudy

The benefits of just putting the lid on the pot (and wrapping around with some aluminum foil) are as follows:

1. Actually LESS chance of infection
2. The beer workday can be shortened considerably. Next day, just pour into fermentor.
3. Less expensive equipment to buy, clean, maintain and worry about

Please note, I am only proposing this - I would be most happy if someone can convince me otherwise.

As always, Cheers!

This is already done, all over the world, it is referred to as "no chill" brewing. Do a search here, plenty of threads about people who do this already. Here is an article I wrote on the topic:

http://www.brewersfriend.com/2009/06/06/australian-no-chill-brewing-technique-tested/

 

[The Pol]

what about over-utilization of hops?

Hop adjustment is needed, there is a chart here on HBT in the many "no chill" threads that covers this idea.

 

[The Pol]

I have yet to hear a legitimate argument as to why it is actually better not to cool the wort. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner fermentation begins the better. How does not cooling the wort actually reduce the chances of infection? This makes no sense to me, but maybe I haven't heard all the facts.

I'm not convinced this method has any benefit beyond saving a little time and money. If it works for you, go for it.

Boiling hot wort, transferred to a sanitized fermentor, sealed, now the fermentor is heat sanitized, anything in there is killed by the heat. Pretty sanitary compared to cooling the wort in an open kettle and then transferred cold to a sanitized fermentor. Definately not less sanitary IMHO.

 

[Baldy_Beer_Brewery]

But in "How to Brew" it says...

 

[boogyman]

I chill with a water/ice bath. The night before, I take 4 or 5 of SWMBO's large tupperware containers, fill them with water, and stick em in the freezer. Then on brew day, I put the pot in a large container with water and dump in the giant ice cubes. Usually takes about an hour to cool, and it doesn't cost me a cent.

 

[HOOTER]

Boiling hot wort, transferred to a sanitized fermentor, sealed, now the fermentor is heat sanitized, anything in there is killed by the heat. Pretty sanitary compared to cooling the wort in an open kettle and then transferred cold to a sanitized fermentor. Definately not less sanitary IMHO.

But that's not what Octavius said.

The benefits of just putting the lid on the pot (and wrapping around with some aluminum foil) are as follows:

1. Actually LESS chance of infection

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what is being suggested here is leaving the wort in the pot overnight and then transferring to the fermenter the next day. Again, not sure how this reduces the chances of infection. It's also worth noting that infections are extremely rare in situations where the wort is cooled and transferred to a fermenter, so this is hardly something to be concerned about. Also, if you use glass carboys (which I do) pouring hot wort into the fermenter isn't recommended.

Apparently this is a somewhat popular method so I'll have to look into it, but as of right not I just can't figure out how this is beneficial.

 

[HOOTER]

Here is an article I wrote on the topic:

By utilizing this method I hoped to:

Conserve the many (50) gallons of water that I waste while operating my immersion chiller.
Conserve time (20-30 minutes) that is spent cooling the wort on brew day.
Conserve time by fermenting in the same HDPE (High-density polyethylene) vessel that I transfer the hot wort into after the boil.
Reduce the amount of equipment required (no chiller) to complete an all-grain brewing session. This may be of special interest to new all-grain brewers.

You save water. That's a plus.

You save a few minutes. Not a big deal IMO.

Your ferment in the same container that you transferred the wort to after the boil. That's no different than cooling the wort and transferring to a sanitized fermenter.

You don't have to buy a wort chiller. You save a few bucks but I've never met an avid homebrewer that was hesitant to spend a little money on his or her hobby/obsession. Buying a wort chiller is a drop in the bucket.

I'm really struggling to find any real benefit to this method. It's certainly got me curious and a bit confused so I guess the search for info continues.

 

[Mongo64]

I can see if you are brewing in a place where water usage is an issue, this may be an attractive option, or if your water supply is pretty warm to begin with. You're gonna use a lot of water to try to chill wort with warm water.

But, if the end result is good beer, its hard to argue with that.

Personally, since i have an IC cooler and an abundant/cool water supply, I'm gonna stick with cooling my wort. I've even started putting the IC cooler in the pot early in the boil cause I've heard yeasties like the extra copper.

 

[yeoldebrewer]

Having too-warm tap water obviously complicates immersion chilling, which in turn complicates full boils. My tap water is 85 deg + this time of year, so a pre-chiller would be a must, etc etc. Having said that, I would rather cool, pitch and be done with it.

But I'm also hoping no-chill turns out to be a valid option. Keeping the plumbing to a minimum can be a good thing.

 

[Grinder12000]

NOT cooling you will have no problems - HOWEVER - you will also have inferior beer. You can do all sorts of short cuts and the beer will come out fine. However, if you really want outstanding beer you should not take short cuts.

The question is bang for buck. If the beer is "good enough" for you that's fine.

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

NOT cooling you will have no problems - HOWEVER - you will also have inferior beer. You can do all sorts of short cuts and the beer will come out fine. However, if you really want outstanding beer you should not take short cuts.

The question is bang for buck. If the beer is "good enough" for you that's fine.

How do you know it will be inferior beer? Have you ever compared the two methods? Have you ever seen anything where rapid cooling and no-chill were compared side-by-side by a panel of BJCP judges? Were the "no chill" beers labeled inferior?

I doubt it, which leaves your statement as nothing more than wild conjecture that because the technique isn't the published norm, its new and scary, and therefore inferior.

As far as to the OP, I would highly suggest using a sealable HDPE container to cool in instead of just using foil or a lid over the top of your brew pot. As the wort cools, it as well as the air above the wort decrease in volume drawing in outside air that can be full of contaminants posing a definite risk for infection. Being able to get an air tight seal on a container allows for the heat of the wort to sterilize all surfaces of the container and a vacuum to be dawn that helps protect your wort from contamination. Using this method I have successfully stored wort for 2 months before pitching yeast.

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

I'm really struggling to find any real benefit to this method. It's certainly got me curious and a bit confused so I guess the search for info continues.

A big benefit, especially for someone like me who is on call most weekends and might only get to brew every 6-8weeks and has limited carboy space to ferment (ambient temps make it almost impossible to ferment without a fermentation chiller, and mine only holds two carboys), I can have one large brew day where I brew 20-30 gallons, and hot pack and store the majority of the wort to be fermented later. this way my pipeline keeps flowing even though I cannot brew that often.

 

[The Pol]

NOT cooling you will have no problems - HOWEVER - you will also have inferior beer. You can do all sorts of short cuts and the beer will come out fine. However, if you really want outstanding beer you should not take short cuts.

The question is bang for buck. If the beer is "good enough" for you that's fine.

SO I assume you have extensive first hand knowlege of the process, I mean, youd have to in order to make that comment. Right?

Inferior how? I cant wait to hear this, I mean, since you have used the process before, right? No one has been able to notice a difference in my beers that are IC chilled and no chilled FWIW, either in flavor or appearance.

 

[The Pol]

How do you know it will be inferior beer? Have you ever compared the two methods? Have you ever seen anything where rapid cooling and no-chill were compared side-by-side by a panel of BJCP judges? Were the "no chill" beers labeled inferior?
I doubt it, which leaves your statement as nothing more than wild conjecture that because the technique isn't the published norm, its new and scary, and therefore inferior.

As far as to the OP, I would highly suggest using a sealable HDPE container to cool in instead of just using foil or a lid over the top of your brew pot. As the wort cools, it as well as the air above the wort decrease in volume drawing in outside air that can be full of contaminants posing a definite risk for infection. Being able to get an air tight seal on a container allows for the heat of the wort to sterilize all surfaces of the container and a vacuum to be dawn that helps protect your wort from contamination. Using this method I have successfully stored wort for 2 months before pitching yeast.

Yeah, "no chill" is so inferior that it has placed first in competitions... how many of the nay-sayers beers have placed first? I love conjecture, it makes everyone an expert, and leaves them with zero credibility.

No chill isnt BETTER, it is just different and produces the same end result. I dont think anyone claims that no chill is better, at least not on this board. It does offer some advantages that some value.

Just like running a HERMS isnt BETTER, it offers some advantages that some value. Not all, but some. Nothing is one size fits all.

 

[Tonedef131]

How do you know it will be inferior beer? Have you ever compared the two methods? Have you ever seen anything where rapid cooling and no-chill were compared side-by-side by a panel of BJCP judges? Were the "no chill" beers labeled inferior?

I have a bitter in the fermenter right now that is going to answer these questions. For how many threads there are on this topic I figured someone should do a side by side to get the bottom of it. It's a ten gallon batch with 5 gallons chilled and pitched immediately and the other 5 was pitched like 30 hours later after ambient chilling. I am a BJCP judge and I am going to get together and do a blind triangle test with the other judges in my club. I will also enter them both in the same competition to see what a second blind panel thinks about them. You can read more about it here:

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/no-chill-case-study-127848/index9.html

I think another experiment would be necessary to address the DMS issue, a pilsner based pale lager perhaps. I thought the bitter would be a good place to start though, should make a decent case for the majority of issues at hand. I'll make a thread about it once I have some real results.

 

[The Pol]

I have a bitter in the fermenter right now that is going to answer these questions. For how many threads there are on this topic I figured someone should do a side by side to get the bottom of it. It's a ten gallon batch with 5 gallons chilled and pitched immediately and the other 5 was pitched like 30 hours later after ambient chilling. I am a BJCP judge and I am going to get together and do a blind triangle test with the other judges in my club. I will also enter them both in the same competition to see what a second blind panel thinks about them. You can read more about it here:

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/no-chill-case-study-127848/index9.html

I think another experiment would be necessary to address the DMS issue, a pilsner based pale lager perhaps. I thought the bitter would be a good place to start though, should make a decent case for the majority of issues at hand. I'll make a thread about it once I have some real results.

Tonedef...

Can you post, in other thread if you prefer, the details of the brew for the rest of us. The malt bill and boil times etc?

 

[Tonedef131]

Tonedef...

Can you post, in other thread if you prefer, the details of the brew for the rest of us. The malt bill and boil times etc?

The recipe is the second post in the link I supplied. The boil time was 60min, the mash temp was 153, and the fermentation temp was 65F. Let me know if you want to know anything else.

 

[The Pol]

How do you know it will be inferior beer? Have you ever compared the two methods? Have you ever seen anything where rapid cooling and no-chill were compared side-by-side by a panel of BJCP judges? Were the "no chill" beers labeled inferior?

I doubt it, which leaves your statement as nothing more than wild conjecture that because the technique isn't the published norm, its new and scary, and therefore inferior.

As far as to the OP, I would highly suggest using a sealable HDPE container to cool in instead of just using foil or a lid over the top of your brew pot. As the wort cools, it as well as the air above the wort decrease in volume drawing in outside air that can be full of contaminants posing a definite risk for infection. Being able to get an air tight seal on a container allows for the heat of the wort to sterilize all surfaces of the container and a vacuum to be dawn that helps protect your wort from contamination. Using this method I have successfully stored wort for 2 months before pitching yeast.

Sounds a lot like buying a can of LME, seems to work for them.

 

[The Pol]

The recipe is the second post in the link I supplied. The boil time was 60min, the mash temp was 153, and the fermentation temp was 65F. Let me know if you want to know anything else.

Cool cool, sounds good. Mine have been boiling for 100 mins, but that may be completely unnecessary... just a throwback from the original test.

 

[Tonedef131]

Cool cool, sounds good. Mine have been boiling for 100 mins, but that may be completely unnecessary... just a throwback from the original test.

I wanted to do a 60 min boil because that is what most homebrewers do, especially new ones who don't have a wort chiller (yet?). I think going up to a 100 min boil sort of throw off time benefit of not chilling and you will consume more energy which may or may not throw off the water saving aspect, depending on where you live. Also because this was maris otter based...I highly doubt there was any SMM left in this wort after 60 min.

 

[The Pol]

I wanted to do a 60 min boil because that is what most homebrewers do, especially new ones who don't have a wort chiller (yet?). I think going up to a 100 min boil sort of throw off time benefit of not chilling and you will consume more energy which may or may not throw off the water saving aspect, depending on where you live. Also because this was maris otter based...I highly doubt there was any SMM left in this wort after 60 min.

Yah, I hear you. From what I have read, which could be BS, even 2SRM malts are kilned to ao point where there is very little SMM left, so the issues of DMS are lmited.

If I were still on propane, 100 minutes would be a waste of $$, with electric it is pennies so the cost issue doesnt matter to me. During that time I am cleaning the MLT and HERMS plumbing anyway.

In fact, water is cheap here and abundant, but it is a convenience thing now. Less equip., less cleaning, no hoses (read self contained brew day). Much of what I do has LITTLE benefit, but since it is my garage, I can do what I like.

I dont post here on this topic to convert people, I really dont care, no chill isnt better IMHO, just the same. For some it fits thier brewing style and timeline. I post here simply to combat the bad information that is blurted out, often by those who have exactly no experience with the process. I post only what I know, from my own garage, from my own beer. For that reason, I have NO idea what will happen with a Pilnser, but I am interested in brewing one up to see!

My no chill Hefe is getting kegged today, so far, so good.

To be fair, if you read the threads here on HBT where chillers have tried no chilling thier beers, I have yet to read one instance where the brewer thought the beer was inferior. No one has a horse in this race, everyone using it is testing it and gathering data, thus far the data has been very positive.

My first no chill beer that was brewed in April is still on tap (barely) and is phenominal, identical to the other keg of the same beer that was chilled.

Also, I have bottled some of my no chill SNPA and Haus Ale, these will be traveling to a BJCP judge in Louisville this weekend with one of our HBT members.

 

[flyangler18]

We were actually discussing potential issues with no-chill brewing at my BJCP study class last night, and a member with a PhD in microbiology brought up an important detail that needs to be considered - stability.

Clarity, DMS and infection issues pre-ferment have been more or less completely hashed out with this process.

Unprecipitated proteins in solution serve as attachment/breeding sites for bacteria, and this is an obvious obstacle to shelf-stability. Even after fermentation and accounting for yeast, a beer is far from sterile. I've said before, though, that because the vast majority of homebrew is consumed quickly, this is a lesser (though no less important) consideration for most homebrewers.

 

[The Pol]

We were actually discussing potential issues with no-chill brewing at my BJCP study class last night, and a member with a PhD in microbiology brought up an important detail that needs to be considered - stability.

Clarity, DMS and infection issues pre-ferment have been more or less completely hashed out with this process.

Unprecipitated proteins in solution serve as attachment/breeding sites for bacteria, and this is an obvious obstacle to shelf-stability. Even after fermentation and accounting for yeast, a beer is far from sterile. I've said before, though, that because the vast majority of homebrew is consumed quickly, this is a lesser (though no less important) consideration for most homebrewers.

Excellent point, and LT stability has not been tested on this board as far as I know. Now, over on the Aussie board, there may be more info. My oldest no chill is 4 months old...

 

[flyangler18]

My oldest no chill is 4 months old...

Yeah, and the challenge there is trying to identify when quality is suffering as a result of staling.

To my palate, a beer that is beginning to decline becomes less crisp, less snappy. The flavors just seem soft, muted and undefined. I sampled a Black Sheep Best Bitter during my BJCP class last night that was showing classic signs of staling. Now, this certainly wasn't a no-chill beer, but the beer had obviously been abused during its long voyage from Yorkshire to the States.

If a no-chill beer is improperly handled after packaging (temperature swings, etc), I can see it turning rather quickly because of the unprecipitated proteins in solution.

 

[beerkrump]

Since this seems to have turned into a 'No Chill Q & A' thread, what impact does No Chill have on the more volatile hops compounds that account for flavor and aroma? Is the fact that the container is covered aid in the retention of these chemicals?

Are there certain brews that you wouldn't no chill?