The "no Chiller" Method

[Boots]

From the previously linked article at here

The level of DMSO does not change during the kettle boil. A small amount of DMS, 0.4 ppb, may be contributed by hops, especially if added in large amounts late in the boil. As long as the wort is hot SMM will be converted to DMS. It is important to convert SMM to DMS in the kettle so that build up during the hot wort stand is minimized. The following steps should insure low levels of DMS in the finished beer:


Boil the entire wort 90 minutes or longer

Ensure that the boil is vigorous - rolling

Allow at least 8% evaporation

Minimize the hot wort standing time

Rapidly cool the wort
The DMS produced during the hot wort stand will stay in solution even if the hot wort tank is vented. For every extra hour of hot wort stand, a DMS increase of approximately 30% will result. The level of DMS in the wort determines the level of DMS in finished beer. In order to predict the level of DMS in finished beer Table V shows the relationship between SMM in malt and DMS in beer.

During fermentation, the evolution of CO2 removes and reduces the level of DMS. At moderate DMS levels of 30-60 ppb a 30-35% reduction can occur, while a 35-60% reduction can occur at higher initial DMS levels, 60-150 ppb.

 

[Stuster]

While we're quoting things, this is from a ProBrewer thread. Sounds like getting the wort below the highest temperatures fast is the key. Racking will certainly help the wort to drop from boiling fast. Any idea how hot the wort is when first in the cube, anybody who has tried this.

So at 70C/158F, the *rate* of DMS formation is about 230 times less
than
at boiling.
At 86F/30C the rate is 3300 times lower than at boiling
At 68F/20C the rate is 14800 times lower then boiling, and abt 4.5 time
less than at 86F/30C.
This is a reasonable extrapolation form the 70C-110C data.

The biggest gains by far are always from reducing the time at highest
temps. One extra minute at 200F is worth an extra day at 85F !!
(give or take a factor of two). I strongly believe that the problem
is
NOT the extra time once you get the wort down to 85F, but the extra
time it took to get the wort from 212F down to 175F.

I think there are two ways to approach this.
1/ Boil longer and convert more of the SMM->DMS and boil it off. An
extra 20 min should make a significant impact - 25% - 50% reduction.
2/ Find a way to drop the boiling wort temp FAST. Perhaps introduce a
bolus of 10% pre-boiled & chilled water to the boiler (if possible).
The problem is due to the extra minutes spent at the highest temps.
Literally 1 minute at boiling produces as much DMS as one hour at 142F
!! If you could find a way to instantly drop the boiling wort to
90C/194F, then continue chilling at your normal rate you'd reduce the
chill-period DMS production by a factor of 4 or 5 !! That's huge.

The other reason DMS may not be a huge issue is the level of the precursor, SMM, is quite low in Australian malts. According to Wes in an old thread

Modern pilsner malts including JW Pils, are malted or rather kilned to achieve a certain malt flavour/aroma as distinct from the poorly modified and low temp kilned pils malts of yesteryear Europe. For those who love the detail, JW Pilsner malt has a max of 4 PPB (parts per billion) DMS precursor.

That is in contrast to what is stated in the article Boots links to where the rates for American malts are apparently 40-110ppb. Perhaps this is why there is no problem with DMS using Aussie malts.

 

[sintax69]

Do you reckon those drums could handle an immersion element, and become a cheapo kettle?

or, to quote from "The Castle", Tell me I'm Dreaming.....

Have some jousting sticks going cheap...

http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...et%20of%20death


I made one of these last year that blue plastic bins are NBG I got a brand new one from riverwood in NSW where they sell them to companys nothing was ever in it and every boil i did it had this plastic tang taste I did nearly 30 boils with those buckets steeped them I gave up in the end the other thing is its near impossable to measure your water with them they go roundish and keep changing shape .But they do make great grain storage bins they is a clamp that goes round the lid that air seals them .

 

[Thommo]

For all the "yayers" on this topic. I will make an analogy. Would you have sex with a stranger without a condom just because someone else did and said they didn't get AIDS?
I am sure many practice unsafe sex and don't get AIDS. Doesn't mean AIDS doesn't exist.
I have no doubt that rapid chilling is a scientifically proven part of the brewing process, otherwise why would megabreweries save on their time and water costs and just "miss" this part of the process.
Sometimes you will get away with being lazy or slack. Generally though it will come back and bite you!

cheers
Darren

[post="116094"][/post]​

I was under the impression that the main reason the bigger breweries cooled quickly was so they could produce more beer. 25 litres takes two days to get down to ambient temperature, so how long would 23,000 litres take with no method of chilling save for the surrounding atmosphere?

Just wondering how the monks cooled their wort centuries ago. Did they have wort chillers, or perhaps by submerging the wort into a stream, or did they just wait?

Don't read this response as being sarcastic, just some questions for people to answer because I am interested.

 

[Andyd]

Just to make things interesting I sent off a request to James at the basic brewing radio podcast to see what a wider audience might think of the idea.

This week's episode has the question - we'll see whether anyone in the wider land has opinions (as if they wouldn't )

Andy

 

[user 384]

For all the "yayers" on this topic. I will make an analogy. Would you have sex with a stranger without a condom just because someone else did and said they didn't get AIDS?
I am sure many practice unsafe sex and don't get AIDS. Doesn't mean AIDS doesn't exist.
I have no doubt that rapid chilling is a scientifically proven part of the brewing process, otherwise why would megabreweries save on their time and water costs and just "miss" this part of the process.
Sometimes you will get away with being lazy or slack. Generally though it will come back and bite you!

cheers
Darren

[post="116094"][/post]​

Come on Darren, you're a real scientist, and you know that "scientifically proven" doesn't mean that it's set in stone forever. Many scientifically proven practices at a later date have been disproven.

And no-one said that DMS or the chance of developing a wort infection through the no chiller approach don't exist, people are simply saying that they believe the probability of this occuring is very small.

Your AIDS example is just a cheap emotive statement. AIDS is a serious incurable health risk, DMS is just a nasty flavour in your beer. And serious infections from anerobic bacteria like botulinum has an annual incidence rate in place like the US of 1:3,000,000. When you further consider that 70% of botulism is infant botulism, which is very different to food botulism, then the annual incidence rate drops to almost 1:10,000,000. People are jsut saying that combined with good sanitation practices, they are willing to take those risks. If you think that the risks are too high, then don't bother with the no chiller approach.

For a mega-brewery this approach wouldn't work because it wouldn't save time or money. Letting their volumes of wort cool naturally would take a very long time, and they are under economic pressures to concentrate on through-put. Therefore chilling rapidly will increase production and hopefully sales/profit.

Also your staement that "I have no doubt that rapid chilling is a scientifically proven part of the brewing process, otherwise why would megabreweries save on their time and water costs and just "miss" this part of the process." is hardly scientific. You have taken a fact, megabrewies force chill, then simply concluded that this must be correct. Such logic is as flawed as, all dogs have four legs, my cat has four legs, therefore my cat is a dog. One statemet doesn't prove the other. Maybe you should have taken some philosophy electives at university .

Cheers
MAH

 

[Gerard_M]

Batz
That is a typical alarmist response from you. What Darren said was that the type of person who wouldn't chill their wort asap, has mates that are having unprotected sex with any old slapper that turns up!
Nuff said really

 

[T.D.]

I thought commercial breweries use Glycol to chill rapidly so they can start fermenting ASAP to keep the swill pouring out the door.

Cheers.

[post="116113"][/post]​

Exactly what I would have thought. To me its a very simple cost-benefit situation:

God only knows how long 50,000-100,000L will take to cool on its own but lets assume its over a week (probably MUCH more).

So that brewery would not be able to use the vessel that the hot wort is in for weeks. One of the fundemental rules in business is never let your plant and equipment unnessesarily sit idle. The cost of a heat exchanger is absolutely nothing compared to the cost of having that equipment tied up while you wait for the wort to cool. The opportunity cost could be 2-3 brews, worth potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in turnover. The reason the big breweries don't do it is as clear as day, and has NOTHING to do with quality, and EVERYTHING to do with the almighty dollar.

 

[T.D.]

Do you reckon those drums could handle an immersion element, and become a cheapo kettle?

or, to quote from "The Castle", Tell me I'm Dreaming.....

Have some jousting sticks going cheap...

I made one of these last year that blue plastic bins are NBG I got a brand new one from riverwood in NSW where they sell them to companys nothing was ever in it and every boil i did it had this plastic tang taste I did nearly 30 boils with those buckets steeped them I gave up in the end

[post="116061"][/post]​

I think most of these kinds of drums are only rated up to around 80 degrees C. I probably wouldn't use them for a boiler, but they should work well for a mash tun or hlt.

 

[Joel]

I don't know about everyone else, but the discussion in this thread has prompted me to actually do a bit of research (rather than make wowser or emotive arguments) on the internet regarding the facts of DMS production.

If you haven't already read my other link on DMS production in beer, here it is:

http://www.abtonline.com/dms.html

A good article from Brewing Techniques regarding DMS precursors in Malts;

http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/b...sue1.1/fix.html

Has recipes and references to other works on this subject.

Interesting article on an alternate source of DMS production in beer;

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/65/9/3915

Yes... That's right. Yeast can also contribute to DMS formation in beer, although it isn't very much, only about half a microgram per litre (ug/L).

The following extract was taken from; http://toolboxes.flexiblelearning.net.au/d...c_beerInfo.html

Another major compound responsible for sulfury flavours in beer is dimethyl sulfide (DMS), which is a desirable flavour component in lager beer but not in ales. In lagers it will lead to a malty/sulfury note. The taste threshold for DMS is considered to be from 50 to 60 g/L. DMS also enhances the malt character of beer. Malting procedures have a much greater effect on beer DMS levels than fermentation conditions. Lower fermentation temperatures and increasing wort gravity favour DMS production.

So, it looks like we actually need some of this stuff in our beer... but not too much.

This is a good article on testing for DMS in beer:

http://www.asbcnet.org/journal/pdfs/backissues/37-0030.pdf

It also has a good table listing average DMS content (ug/L) by country. Apparently the average Aussie beer has 80 micrograms/litre.

If you want to get your beer tested and find out exactly how much DMS there is in it, these guys in America will do it for US$77;

http://www.siebelinstitute.com/services/craft-brewing.html

Basically, the upshot is the malt is the main contributor of DMS precursors into our beer. HOWEVER, (and this has been stated previously) most modern malt, and certainly all modern Australian malt, are specifiecally made to contain 4 ppb (parts per billion) DMS precursors. In laymans terms 4ppb = bugger all. This FACT, combined with a good long (uncovered) boil will remove approximately 70% to 80% of any DMS contributed to the wort by the malt.

The difference in the speed of chilling, whether you're using a CFC, IM or no chiller method, is only a couple of hours in the "DMS Danger Zone" ie. above 80C where DMS formation is rapid. With the miniscule amounts of DMS precursors left in the wort after a good long uncovered boil, the amount of DMS formed in the cube will probably only be on the order of a few micrograms/litre, ie bugger all and barely measureable.

Please bear in mind I don't have any hard evidence or references for my last statement. I would have thought however that it follows naturally from the evidence presented.

To my mind this satisfactorily closes the DMS issue. If you're having DMS problems with your beer, it's getting in some other way, it's another unwanted flavour compound (there are literally hundreds of flavour compounds in beer) or it's all in your head.

 

[Stuster]

Excellent post Joel. Couldn't agree more.

My research suggested exactly the same to me. If this problem is solved, we have only to convince the sceptics of the risk of bacterial contamination.

Now perhaps some of the critics could suggest how a sanitised closed container filled with boiled wort still above the pasteurisation temperature is a hot-bed of bacterial action.

The other problem that has been suggested was with cold break. As I mentioned in an earlier post, American breweries do not remove the cold break. How can we argue with what the big breweries do, eh?

 

[user 384]

Basically, the upshot is the malt is the main contributor of DMS precursors into our beer. HOWEVER, (and this has been stated previously) most modern malt, and certainly all modern Australian malt, are specifiecally made to contain 4 ppb (parts per billion) DMS precursors. In laymans terms 4ppb = bugger all. This FACT, combined with a good long (uncovered) boil will remove approximately 70% to 80% of any DMS contributed to the wort by the malt.

[post="116142"][/post]​

Hi Joel

I also did some reading and this basically corresponds with the information I Found. SMM, the DMS precursor, is very stable and only becomes DMS in any quantity at higher temps. Only about 25% of SMM in malt makes its way into the wort. When SMM is broken down it forms DMS and the amino acid homoserine. DMS is not water soluble and very volatile, hence its ability to be driven off during a good boil. At the end of a 90 minute boil 79% of DMS has been driven off. So post boil, there is only 21% left of the 25% of SMM that made it into your wort, to become DMS, and after it has cooled to below 80C the rate of DMS production reduces significantly, plus during fermentation, CO2 production will scrub some of the DMS that still remains in your wort. Conclusion - with modern, well modified malts, DMS is bugger all of a problem to the 20% of people who can actually taste it.

I agree totally that it now simply an issue of addressing the chance of infection.

Cheers
MAH

 

[Darren]

MAH,
A couple of aged homebrewers dying from botulism "source unknown" wouldn't even "blip" on the American scale. Bear in mind the toxin is flavourlessThe anti-microbial effects of hops is certainly inhibitive to bacterial growth. Having said that, we all know bacteria easily confer resistance to anti-microbial agents such as antibiotics.
If you are to continually place hot wort into the same container and allow it to cool, you will quite effectively select for bacteria that will grow under those conditions. Stand up Mr Clostridium! (its lethal like AIDS too)

I agree you guys are doing something outside of the circle but you must be aware that there could be risk factors associated.
ESPECIALLY if you decide not to pitch the wort for a week or so (ie become even more slack and decide food science is a load of bollocks!)

Does low dose continual botulism poisoning improve your complexion? Could be a new beauty product. 8)

cheers
Darren

Anyhow

 

[Andrew]

What a thread.
I rarely post, happy to read though at the end of a hard day building a micro, but have to add my angle to this one.
Who out there had actually had an actual unquestionable undeniable attack of the DMS overload in their brewing? Own up. I have. Possibly there are other common factors between us that need looking into. For example the idea that Aussie malts carry less risk rings true in my experience. And other malts are not so good.
For me, its Kolsch. With this style there is nowhere to hide...
With my Kolsch the factor I believe I have fairly logically narrowed down to producing the massive DMS episodes was in using rather old Hoepfner pilsner malt.
Anyone else?
Cheers

 

[sah]

Sorry for the late and repitious response to Darren's AIDS analogy (and sorry to rub it in Darren).

There has been a couple of comments on the mega breweries' quick cooling of wort. Yes it makes economic sense for them to cool quickly to free the kettle (or other vessel) but it goes further than this. I toured CUBs newish Queensland site late last year and the attractive female robot who was my host told me that the wort is cooled with water which is then fed into the hot liquor tank for the next batch. Very economical.

They also collect and compress the CO2 from the fermentors and reuse for carbonation.

Scott

 

[dicko]

What a thread.
I rarely post, happy to read though at the end of a hard day building a micro, but have to add my angle to this one.
Who out there had actually had an actual unquestionable undeniable attack of the DMS overload in their brewing? Own up. I have. Possibly there are other common factors between us that need looking into. For example the idea that Aussie malts carry less risk rings true in my experience. And other malts are not so good.
For me, its Kolsch. With this style there is nowhere to hide...
With my Kolsch the factor I believe I have fairly logically narrowed down to producing the massive DMS episodes was in using rather old Hoepfner pilsner malt.
Anyone else?
Cheers

[post="116202"][/post]​

I hope the posts in this thread stay focussed (sp) on MAH's original post and over time, if results are positive will change the AG HB scene in Aus, especially if using Aus malts.
It may be shown that imported malts are ok with this method as well if all results are posted and recorded truthfully.
Andrew,
IMO your post has contributed true and accurate info, as has some others over the 15 pages and long term we may all benefit from this.
It would be good to hear from some other Qualified brewers on this subject if the comments can be kept to the HB situation and not necessarilly include experiences in the micro/mega situations.

Thanks Andrew,

 

[Kai]

Who out there had actually had an actual unquestionable undeniable attack of the DMS overload in their brewing?

I haven't.

There has been a couple of comments on the mega breweries' quick cooling of wort. Yes it makes economic sense for them to cool quickly to free the kettle (or other vessel) but it goes further than this. I toured CUBs newish Queensland site late last year and the attractive female robot who was my host told me that the wort is cooled with water which is then fed into the hot liquor tank for the next batch. Very economical.

They also collect and compress the CO2 from the fermentors and reuse for carbonation.

Yeah, they're very clever at saving resources unlike some industries *cough*wine*cough*. From memory a good brewery uses around 6 litres of water per litre of beer produced.

 

[Andrew]

I hope the posts in this thread stay focussed (sp) on MAH's original post ... ...comments can be kept to the HB situation and not necessarilly include experiences in the micro/mega situations.

Hey Dicko,
I'm getting keyboard lazy atm.
My comments were based on HB sized 2-keg batch sizes, not huge runs.
The point I'm clumsily trying to make is that if people have had DMS experiences, what have they put it down to and thus is there enough similarities occuring amongst people here to begin a data trail based on our combined community experience which points what not to do or use if people do want to use the no-chill method? (bloody hell what a long sentence!)
I think this has already begun a bit (eg Aus malts appear ok to use in this method), and still ties into MAH's original post.

And on another point, as we all know some tastes can either mask or accentuate others. I have a suspicion that tannin mistakes (eg oversparging with wrong temp/Ph water) makes DMS more noticeable. Experiences anyone?

Yours in ever expanding and sharing of knowledge...

Cheers

 

[T.D.]

But this is what I don't understand... If "they are spore forming organisms", and that makes them more likely to survive 99 Degree wort, then why aren't they absolutely crucifying everybody's 25 degree wort after they have chilled it with more conventional methods? Sure, the spores might be more inclined to survive boiling wort than "regular" bacteria, but surely 99 degree wort is a less favourable environment for any organism than 25 degree wort???

I still don't see how the no chill method can even slightly increase the infection risk (all things being equal).

Can somebody explain if I have missed something here???

 

[Ray_Mills]

Hi
You would have to have a real problem to get s bug in your wort drum if you clean it the same as your fermenter, you have a bigger chance of getting a bug when you cool it.
Its very simple and i think Darren is being a little over the top with all this.
Cheer
Ray