No Chill And Myths Of Rapid Chilling

[bcp]

Brad from Beersmith puts out an excellent little newsletter. In the latest one, he talks about chilling your wort.

Here are two of the benefits of rapid chilling he quotes:
Improved clarity When you rapidly cool hot wort, many of the heavy proteins and tannins will no longer be soluble and will fall out of the wort. Siphoning the wort off of this cold break will result in a improved clarity and improve taste as well.
Reduction of volatile compounds Dimethyl Sulfide (DMS) which gives beer a strong sweet corn flavor can continue to break down after boiling and may be carried forward into the finished beer unless you rapidly cool the beer (Ref: Brewers Handbook by Goldhammer).

Now my experience with no chill suggests the first one is definitely a myth that continues to be promulgated. The separation of cold break in the cube is superb.

I'm less sure about the second - don't know enough. I've never had a DMS problem, assuming that my boil has been rigorous enough to remove it. "If the wort is cooled slowly these compounds will not be removed from the wort and will dissolve back in." (Palmer)
Because DMS is created at temperatures below boiling, cooling the wort too slowly means that excessive levels of DMS can be created which cannot be evaporated once the boil has stopped (homebrewing wiki) .

I'm not sure that makes sense to me. If the compounds are still in there, how does rapid cooling make any difference? The precursors continue to react until the temperature drops? If that was true, surely all the no-chill beers would struggle, particularly pilsners.

Anyone comment?

 

[MarkBastard]

I don't personally give a shit because it never affects me.

 

[Barley Belly]

I don't personally give a shit because it never affects me.

?

 

[stux]

Brad from Beersmith puts out an excellent little newsletter. In the latest one, he talks about chilling your wort.

Here are two of the benefits of rapid chilling he quotes:
Improved clarity When you rapidly cool hot wort, many of the heavy proteins and tannins will no longer be soluble and will fall out of the wort. Siphoning the wort off of this cold break will result in a improved clarity and improve taste as well.
Reduction of volatile compounds Dimethyl Sulfide (DMS) which gives beer a strong sweet corn flavor can continue to break down after boiling and may be carried forward into the finished beer unless you rapidly cool the beer (Ref: Brewers Handbook by Goldhammer).

Now my experience with no chill suggests the first one is definitely a myth that continues to be promulgated. The separation of cold break in the cube is superb.

I'm less sure about the second - don't know enough. I've never had a DMS problem, assuming that my boil has been rigorous enough to remove it. "If the wort is cooled slowly these compounds will not be removed from the wort and will dissolve back in." (Palmer)
Because DMS is created at temperatures below boiling, cooling the wort too slowly means that excessive levels of DMS can be created which cannot be evaporated once the boil has stopped (homebrewing wiki) .

I'm not sure that makes sense to me. If the compounds are still in there, how does rapid cooling make any difference? The precursors continue to react until the temperature drops? If that was true, surely all the no-chill beers would struggle, particularly pilsners.

Anyone comment?

Cold break happens when the wort gets cold... If its done fast or slow, once its cold it happens.

No Chill allows you the best possible clarity into the fermenter, I would say, you get a better break with No Chill than any other method.

The american's are behind the curve on this one

 

[emnpaul]

"If the wort is cooled slowly these compounds will not be removed from the wort and will dissolve back in." (Palmer)
Because DMS is created at temperatures below boiling, cooling the wort too slowly means that excessive levels of DMS can be created which cannot be evaporated once the boil has stopped (homebrewing wiki) .

I made the "mistake" of no chilling a Munich Helles when I first started AG brewing as I was under the impression that DMS precursors were boiled off by a nice long boil. After no chilling overnight and a four week ferment plus lagering etc. there is no noticeable DMS in the finished beer. It could be that my DMS detection palette is not very good but I say it's a myth.

I should also add that I've since done a German Style Pilsener and a Dortmunder, both with a high percentage of Weyermann Pils malt using the same method with no detectable DMS in the finished beer.

 

[MHB]

Personally I think its largely an American thing, mostly coming out of their Professional brewing experience with 6 row malt, although nor directly related the high levels of SMS (DMS precursor) and protein found in 6-row accounts for their concerns.
If you are using Ale malt and/or getting enough evaporation (8-10%) then I think you can forget about DMS. With the local and imported Pilsner (not American) malts its rare to find anyone having a problem with DMS unless they are trying to do short boils.
There is in my opinion no beneficial amount of Hot Break that can be carried over to the fermenter; Cold Break on the other hand is a yeast nutrient and unless you are seeing ridiculously large amounts (its probably hot break you are seeing) then it is at worst benign and within reason beneficial and I wouldnt worry about it.
If you are having problems with either DMS or the stability (haze forming) of your beer it might be worth revisiting otherwise relax and have a home brew.....
MHB

 

[dr K]

All of the American craft breweries I have visited, from New Belgium to Stone, from Avery to Ballast Point use two-row.
Low kilned malts have a much greater amount of DMS pre-cursor (remember the same barley, indeed malt that makes a German Pils also makes Vienna and Munich, and Cara*.)
Frankly, if you no chill and find no problems then that's about as good as it gets, you may be lucky but likely your lack of organoleptic training or skills will make, for you, fast chilling a waste of money, though not time, this failing, however, does not make standard knowledge and practice a myth.

K

 

[MarkBastard]

?

All the theory people always go on about. I notice none of the above in practise so why would I let a bit of theory bother me?

When you make your own beer for your own consumption you have the luxury of not giving a toss what other people think.

 

[Bribie G]

I suffer from chronic anorganolepsis which is why I like Melbourne Bitter I guess :blink:

 

[dr K]

anorganolepsis

Love it !!!!!

 

[Thirsty Boy]

but um - i no chill, and my beers have been tasted on a number of occasions by people with exceptional organoleptic training and abilities, and occasionally analysed in labs specifically set up for beer work.

And they dont particularly have the issues that standard knowledge and practice suggest they should have.

100% weyerman pilsner malt, no chill, tasted by several trained palates specifically looking for DMS, several brews - never even once has anybody noticed a problematic level and in fact its only ever been picked up at all by a couple of tasters. same sort of tasting with BB lager malt gave the same result. i went looking for DMS issues - failed to find them.

sorry K, but in the particular case of no-chill and its potential to cause problem DMS. it really does seem that "standard" knowledge and practice is failing to reflect whats actually happening.

As for rapid chilling and cold break.... I really haven't found anything in the non "home" brewing literature that suggests that fast is particularly better than slow, this one seems to be someing that some homebrew guru thought up and everyone just decided it must be right. Pro brewers do chill rapidly, but its more about time and energy efficiency than anything else. so as far as i am concerned, that doesn't even make it into the category of standard knowledge, given that i dont think its actually standard in any way. Cooled is cooled, fast or slow makes sod all difference.

I'm happy to be shown literature that says I have that one wrong - but I've had a pretty good search around looking for it over the last few years and haven't turned anything up.

 

[raven19]

Next we will be discussing Botulism with Chappo...

Never had DMS in any of my NC beers afaik.

edit - spelling and concurring with TB.

Futhermore hot and cold break make sfa difference in my beers, it all drops out prior to transferring from primary to keg.

 

[marksfish]

the one question i have on the no-chill all pils malt beers that show no dms is how long was the boil. was it the 90 minutes recommended to remove the precursor for dms.

 

[Bribie G]

I always do a 90 min boil when using Weyermann Pils (which is just occasional in my case) but I don't bother with Aus Malts. I understand that Czech Breweries do / did up to 2 hour boils.

 

[hoppy2B]

DMS is meant to be an issue with feed barley. :blink:
If DMS has a boiling point of 37 degrees wouldn't it be more likely to evap out of your brew with no chill? :huh:

 

[Nick JD]

Commercial breweries want the energy in the hot wort. They use it to heat up the next strike water.

It's all about heat exchange, not heat loss.

Only time I ever get DMS is in my Corn and Cabbage Weizen. Mmmmm, vegetably.

 

[eamonnfoley]

Also agree there is no DMS problem no chilling - as long as you dont melt the cube!!!

 

[jakub76]

90 minute boil seems adequate to remove the DMS potential, NC or not. However if the precursors are still there DMS will form at high temps and a sealed vessel will keep them in your beer.

As for cold break, Palmer's quote seems to assume the wort is going into the fermenter without dropping out the cold break - in which case his point is valid.

Adopt the work-arounds when no-chilling and we can avoid the problems highlighted - doesn't make NC the holy grail. Not sure why people champion this technique so much. Granted it is convenient but it doesn't change the science.

If you boil for 90 minutes and separate your cold break you shouldn't have problems with DMS or protein haze, that doesn't mean those things don't exist.

 

[emnpaul]

Not sure why people champion this technique so much. Granted it is convenient but it doesn't change the science.

Not sure people really champion it. It's more a case of it being a valid alternative for people without the time, space, money "give a rats" to go rapid chilling. Just another means to the same end.

 

[adryargument]

Here are two of the benefits of rapid chilling he quotes:
Improved clarity When you rapidly cool hot wort, many of the heavy proteins and tannins will no longer be soluble and will fall out of the wort. Siphoning the wort off of this cold break will result in a improved clarity and improve taste as well.
Reduction of volatile compounds Dimethyl Sulfide (DMS) which gives beer a strong sweet corn flavor can continue to break down after boiling and may be carried forward into the finished beer unless you rapidly cool the beer (Ref: Brewers Handbook by Goldhammer).

Why do people always compare this to no-chill cubing?? They are not related at all, the above is in regards to putting together a brew and starting fermentation on the same day.

I can guarantee that if i left my chilled wort in the kettle for 4 weeks it would be clearer then any cube for the same amount of time.