Throw Out Your Cubes

[drsmurto]

-No chill allows the luxury of making a proper starter, using identical wort, which (according to what I've read is desirable for the yeast). IF my starter doesn't fire (and this happens to brewers about the place) I am afforded the extra time to get the right one purchased/started rather than needing to resort to pitching whatever else I have on hand.

Not going to get involved in a no chill vs chill debate, what you do in the privacy of your own brewery is your choice.

But, I will correct any misnomers that may skew the debate and there are a few here.

I am a chiller. I don't brew until my yeast is ready so there is no last minute panicking and pitching of 'whatever i have on hand'.

If this happens in any brewery it's poor planning and has nothing to do with chill or no chill.

The idea of using identical wort is somewhat of a misnomer. I can brew the same brew over and over again. The first time i wont have any identical wort on hand to have been able to build up a starter with prior but from then on i can freeze part of the batch and use it in a starter for the following batch. Zwickel does this regularly, I don't as i tend to reuse the same yeast for a number of batches and either top crop if the strain is suitable or reuse yeastcake.

It's nit picking to some degree but then the whole debate of chill vs no chill is.

 

[ForkBoy]

manticle, how do you compensate for late hop additions in your recipes? This is one of the things that has turned me away lately, most brews ended up bitter with a lack of flavour/aroma - especially with the higher AA flavour hops. I was dropping the late additions in the cube.

You say you ferment in your no chill cube - do you have a significant headspace in the cube when you rack it? It sounds like an interesting technique.

 

[MHB]

Been following this thread with interest!
No-Chill Works, undoubtedly and undeniably, the questions that some have about the process are also valid.
After several years as a no-chiller Im going back to a counter flow chiller because I think it will make an improvement to my beers, particularly the paler larger, that wont stop me no-chilling some beers at need.
One of my favourite adages is everything affects the beer, Im not saying better or worse just that every choice we as brewers make ends up in the glass, split a batch no-chill half crash chill the other, ferment side by side with the same yeast and you will get two different beers.

When it comes to hops and no-chill, well for me the jury is still out on that to some extent.
The mechanisms involved in isomerisation have been well studied and explained; Isomerisation is and will continue happen after the wort is cubed; at a well understood rate as will the degradation of Iso-Alpha Acids. What is less well documented is what happens to Taste and Aroma hop additions in a hot closed container; personally I would be very reluctant to add hops to a cube until I understand whats happening to them a lot better than I do now but I will say the grassiest beer I ever tasted was Cube-Hoped.

Both chilling and no offer advantages and drawbacks and if we want to make better beer its up to us as brewers to explore the possibilities and decide which works best for us, no guarantee that the process I favour will be the best one for you or any other brewer. But keep an open mind, judge your and other brewers beers critically, ask about their processes, look for trends, experiment, test, get outside opinions from people that know beer and who will tell you the truth.
One day I will brew a perfect pilsner, I dont think it will be a No-Chill beer.
Mark

 

[rich_lamb]

Well, I started out using a chiller, then convinced myself I needed to go no-chill for a couple of years (mainly because of the drought - remember that?), and recently went back to chilling as now I have a tank. So FWIW I have practical experience of both, and being pretty keen on competition I have my beers frequently and rigorously assessed.

Chilling produces better beer.

Whoa, flame on! There, I said it.
Dont care about all that convenience stuff; at the end of the day you do about the same work to make a batch of beer. I understand the theory of DMS formation but I never tasted it in my no-chilled beers or any other (competition placed) beers made by no-chill brewers - a bit of a mystery, or we dont really know the mechanisms for DMS?

I can only describe the quality of no-chilled beers as being "muddier" - less distinct. Hopping is definitely a problem, and the first beers I made (no-chill) were horribly bitter. What a lot of no-chill advocates don't tell you is how they go about avoiding hop residue going in the cube, and brewer to brewer this makes a world of difference.
Anybody who says they do X and "their beers are fine" is wasting their breath - what does fine mean? How much better could their beers potentially be? How do they stand at competition?

 

[black_labb]

Nice to see some people in here experienced with both NC and chilling.

For me the convenience is great. I can brew and keep the cubes for when I am ready to ferment them. I can brew when my fermentors are all tied up with other things only to pitch the yeast a few weeks later. I can do double batches with somewhat different beers within them by cube hopping differently and using a different yeast.

NC effects the beer in some ways just like chilling it does, but just like other parts of your brewery you design recipes for your equipment.

While I think my beers turn out well I have not entered them in any comps. I am looking forward to entering them in a few this year though so that will change.

 

[manticle]

Not going to get involved in a no chill vs chill debate, what you do in the privacy of your own brewery is your choice.

But, I will correct any misnomers that may skew the debate and there are a few here.

I am a chiller. I don't brew until my yeast is ready so there is no last minute panicking and pitching of 'whatever i have on hand'.

If this happens in any brewery it's poor planning and has nothing to do with chill or no chill.

The idea of using identical wort is somewhat of a misnomer. I can brew the same brew over and over again. The first time i wont have any identical wort on hand to have been able to build up a starter with prior but from then on i can freeze part of the batch and use it in a starter for the following batch. Zwickel does this regularly, I don't as i tend to reuse the same yeast for a number of batches and either top crop if the strain is suitable or reuse yeastcake.

It's nit picking to some degree but then the whole debate of chill vs no chill is.

I'm not really interested in a vs debate either as I hope I've made clear (by previously stating exactly that). I'm, like you, hoping to address some fallacies (not misnomers - you can be anal about science, I'll be anal about language) inherent in the OP and subsequent follow up.

I'm not suggesting that every chiller is frantically scrambling around trying to coincide their starter with their brewday. Of course you can hold off brewing, brew and freeze, etc etc. I'm merely pointing out the convenience of no chill from my perspective in that regard. I hardly ever brew the same thing twice too so, at least for me, no chill gives me the ability to ferment at will with starters made from the same wort. It's not the only way. For me to suggest it is would be to buy into the vs thing in which case I may as well stick a potato in my left nostril. I'm interested in neither (nose potatoes and versus debates) and I'm interested in both (Chilling and no-chilling).

Probably clear as mud but I can always try and clarify tomorrow if anyone cares.

Simply if I plan a starter and I plan a brewday and the starter doesn't work out so well, I have an extra option that I may not otherwise have. If I chilled all the time I could probably work it out but I don't currently need to.

@forkboy: I don't really. I just design recipes around a process that works for me. If I brew a beer that doesn't rely on loads of hops (single addition or simple bittering/flavouring/aroma additions), then I just do that - 60 min, 20 min and 0 min. 0 min is added at whirlpool which is usually 20 minutes after flameout. If it's a super hoppy beer, I usually burst the majority of hops from about 30 mins on with additions every 5 mins and then dry hop. I mentioned a side by side I tried using a plate chiller and a no chill (same wort, same brew, split). Definitely a difference - only an ***** would pretend there wasn't but as always it comes down to preference. Strangely, several other brewers, at different times, blind tasting and including at my brew club, picked the no chill as having better aroma. The NC was definitely more bitter but since the recipe was always NC, I found the chilled one a bit out of balance (has a lot of munich and crystal) so would change the malt bill to compensate if chilling. Hop flavour was definitely more distinct in the chilled version.

As for headspace in the cube: I fill to about 2 L short of the top, squeeze the air out when filling the cube as per the recommended NC method. When ready to pitch, I undo the cap to let the air back in, redo, shake to aerate then undo, add yeast, retighten the lid so it's just short of being tight. This is enough. Occasionally I get a tiny bit of krausen leaking out the top which is easily cleaned and sanitised. It just isn't a problem. I've filled cubes to the very top before and still had no major issues (some krausen leakage, clean and spray with starsan, move on). Krausen explosions happen with fermenters all the time. In a cube they seem slightly more restrained and just as easily dealt with.

@Bitter and twisted: I haven't entered loads of beer in comps but last year saw a 3rd place at worthogs pale mania, 2 x 1st places at Vicbrew (as well as a 4th and 8th and a 9th with ~30 entries per category) and a 4th and 11th at the nats with beers made no chilled, fermented with hop debris in the no chill cubes on top of the cold break and fermented with no fermenting fridge (water baths etc).

The Vicbrew 4th was a hoppy APA.

Yes I may have done better if I changed all that to chilled, no cold break, ferment fridge. Who knows?. I also beat many who chilled, transferred and used an STC1000 and generally, I think, did OK. I enjoyed drinking my own beers and some other people (brewers and non brewers, BJCP judges and non BJCP judges) did too. Good enough for me. Happy to suggest my beer is fine on that basis.

No chill works. It suits some people. Chilling works. It suits some people. If your beer is too bitter when chilling OR no chilling then change the hop additions in the recipe. Not hard.

Should add that I respect your experience having tried both methods and am simply relating mine. I am pro multiple techniques in all areas of brewing. HERMS, BIAB, NC, Plate, immersion - whatever. Different ways to make beer - that's what makes it exciting.

If I were to recommend a slightly more complicated/time consuming process that I find makes a difference (in my experience again) I would put step mashing, sepecially stepped sacch rests as being worthy of pursuit. Others may differ.

 

[Thirsty Boy]

Well, I started out using a chiller, then convinced myself I needed to go no-chill for a couple of years (mainly because of the drought - remember that?), and recently went back to chilling as now I have a tank. So FWIW I have practical experience of both, and being pretty keen on competition I have my beers frequently and rigorously assessed.

Chilling produces better beer.

Whoa, flame on! There, I said it.
Dont care about all that convenience stuff; at the end of the day you do about the same work to make a batch of beer. I understand the theory of DMS formation but I never tasted it in my no-chilled beers or any other (competition placed) beers made by no-chill brewers - a bit of a mystery, or we dont really know the mechanisms for DMS?

I can only describe the quality of no-chilled beers as being "muddier" - less distinct. Hopping is definitely a problem, and the first beers I made (no-chill) were horribly bitter. What a lot of no-chill advocates don't tell you is how they go about avoiding hop residue going in the cube, and brewer to brewer this makes a world of difference.
Anybody who says they do X and "their beers are fine" is wasting their breath - what does fine mean? How much better could their beers potentially be? How do they stand at competition?

I no chill and my beers are fine...

They are frequently tasted by experienced, trained tasters for whom its a professional skill and no fault trends are present and they frequently enough place at state and national level HB comps to keep me happy and make sure the trophy shelf requires an occasion dust. I've won more stuff for no-chill than chill beers, but I'd expect that because I brew more no-chill beers. Sure, way less than all my beers are great, but thats equally true of both methods.

So - I'm perfecly happy to accept "I think my beer is better when I chill" I'm not happy to accept that chilling as an absolute rule produces better beer. It doesn't in my brewery. Perhaps the problem with other no-chillers is that they simply dont do it properly? Perhaps my problem is that I dont chill properly and if I did I would notice a quality improvement?

You talk about avoiding hop residue, and its been mentioned a few times that hopping and bitterness are "problems" - but they aren't... Things just work differently in No-Chill than they do when you chill. So big whoopsie?? Just like any other part of brewing, you have to do it properly, and properly for no-chill means different things than it means if you chill. Its different if you immersion chill vs if you plate chill. Learn the correct skills, apply them properly and it works. Get lazy, take shortcuts, make too many compromises... it doesnt' work so well.

I'm perfectly happy to say that there might be certain things you want from a beer that you cant get from no-chill. Maybe the perfect pilsner cant be brewed NC, who knows? But as a technique its not particularly more limited than others.. For example - I just brewed an APA and I particularly wanted the aroma profile you get from using a hop-back. Tough ***** for me if I want to no-chill it, can't hop back with no-chill! Better Throw Away my Cubes & bust out the immersion chiller then... Oh wait, you cant use a hop back if you immersion chill either... damn. Throw out all those copper coils - they have limitations!. And I've seen plenty of stuff about not being able to late kettle hop "properly" if you use a CF or plate chiller because instead of cooling down the whole wort body, it only cools down the stuff thats passed through the chiller while the rest remains hot. So now we have to Throw away our Plate Chillers too?? Do all eski brewers have to throw out their mash tuns because they cant be directly fired? Will someone who cant do a decoction on their system ever brew the perfect pilsner? Is RIMS the work of Satan whilst angels cry tears of joy over beers from a HERMS? Guess what - different things work differently, you have to use them differently and they give different result. Just like No-Chill if you compare it to (which version is it we are talking about anyway?) chilling.

Different isn't necessarily better or worse, it just means you have to understand the nature of the difference and work with it.

For me - I'll be keeping my cubes thanks very much. I dont seem to experience the "problems" that are somehow supposed to accompany the technique and well... I no-chill and my beers are indeed fine.

 

[mje1980]

I chilled for 4 or so years, and i've now been chilling for a good 3 years i guess. When i transitioned, i found i didn't need to make IBU calc changes. Lately i have realised that my beers being more hoppy than bitter, dont really need adjusting for my tastes. If i brewed more bitter than hoppy, i'd probably have to adjust calc's. I have done a few 10 min IPA's without adjusting calcs, and love the results.

I think both techniques are valid. Im also a 3V brewer, and think BIAB is a valid technique. If it works for you, then it works!!

 

[Batz]

I find it interesting how a lot of brewers who are so against NC, chill their beer with a chiller of some sort and don't quite reach pitching temperatures. Then guess what ? They put the fermenter in a fridge and pitch the next morning, much like no chill if you ask me.

Batz

 

[QldKev]

I find it interesting how a lot of brewers who are so against NC, chill their beer with a chiller of some sort and don't quite reach pitching temperatures. Then guess what ? They put the fermenter in a fridge and pitch the next morning, much like no chill if you ask me.

Batz

shhh! don't speak logic, this is AHB! :drinks:

 

[MarkBastard]

I find it interesting how a lot of brewers who are so against NC, chill their beer with a chiller of some sort and don't quite reach pitching temperatures. Then guess what ? They put the fermenter in a fridge and pitch the next morning, much like no chill if you ask me.

Batz

It's a good point, because some people here will talk strongly and try to sound like an authority on a topic but make really basic assumptions about the advice they're giving to someone.

For example someone from Tasmania telling someone from Darwin that chilling doesn't use up much water.

Or when they only tell half the truth, like over selling their method by leaving out important points like having to use pre-chillers, or pitching yeast higher than normal, or like you said putting the fermenter in the fridge overnight (LOL).

Or when they exaggerate prices or gear required.

Happens all the time here and it's truly pathetic.

 

[Ironsides]

I can only brew small batches, and do high gravity boils, so i find that a water bath works pretty well to get the temp low enough to stop IBU's being absorbed. I have also added boiled, then cooled or frozen water to the boiling wort. this drops the temp from boiling to 40, very very quickly. Ussualy the combiunation of water bath and cold water added gets me to pitching temp in an hour so.

Works for me anyway.

 

[beerbrewer76543]

After 6 pages people are still on topic??? My my has AHB grown up or something???

 

[kieran]

My 2c.

Both can produce nice beer. I believe, from what NC people here are saying, is that you can alter the brew ingredients and schedule to give you a final product that is perfectly drinkable, tasty, and prize-worthy. However there are likely limitations to this process. Perhaps DMS could be a problem but any knockers on that front (I think) don't understand that DMS can easily be alleviated by having a strong vigorous boil and allowing evaporation to do the work (I lose 6L/hr with 4800W working over a 26L boil) -- of course, you may need to be able to adjust your hop additions to account for any changes in alpha-isomerisation rate (if your boils aren't normally as vigorous).

One thing you wont get around is higher levels of non-precipitated protein -- I don't know how significant that is without actually doing a side by side comparison. I'm doing a brew tomorrow, so perhaps I'll ween off a litre and let that "no chill", and I'll do a protein prep and do a proper quantitative comparison using a Bradford assay or something. Assuming there inherently is more protein, I think it could be said that bigger body beers, hoppy bitter Ales, IPAs and Stouts would see little effect from an increased protein content from a no-chill. However, more carefully balanced beers would require a significant amount of work to get them "right". However, the average general home brewhouse, I think is unable to make such consistent minor, well balanced, modifications to hit the nail on the head consistently for those beers. I would think that there is just too much variability and inconsistency.

FWIW
I use a plate chiller because I can use a 20,000L in-ground concrete rainwater tank as my water source. What goes through the plate chiller, ends up back in the water tank. Nil water usage. I whirlpool before chilling to "clear" the wort of any precipitated protein from the Koppafloc additions. Once I'm chilling, I continue to whirlpool (helps dump trub back into the kettle) until I hit pitching temp, then the wort goes into the fermenter. A benefit of living in Melbourne is the cool ground temps, so my heat exchanger water is cold coming in (even in summer). Love it.

 

[Steve@PMF82]

One thing you wont get around is higher levels of non-precipitated protein -- I don't know how significant that is without actually doing a side by side comparison. I'm doing a brew tomorrow, so perhaps I'll ween off a litre and let that "no chill", and I'll do a protein prep and do a proper quantitative comparison using a Bradford assay or something. Assuming there inherently is more protein, I think it could be said that bigger body beers, hoppy bitter Ales, IPAs and Stouts would see little effect from an increased protein content from a no-chill. However, more carefully balanced beers would require a significant amount of work to get them "right". However, the average general home brewhouse, I think is unable to make such consistent minor, well balanced, modifications to hit the nail on the head consistently for those beers. I would think that there is just too much variability and inconsistency.

I am not quite sure i understand what you are saying here?

So is your theory - chilling quickly leaves less cold break proteins in the wort?

The same wort drained from the kettle , some chilled, some no chilled, wouldn't no chill have less break in it?
Especially if it has weeks to sit around letting gravity drop more break out? edit: thats assuming you rack the clear wort into the fermenter.

When quick chilling through a plate chiller straight into fermenter, does that not include a lot of cold break in it as well?

Genuine questions

 

[kieran]

I am not quite sure i understand what you are saying here?

So is your theory - chilling quickly leaves less cold break proteins in the wort?

Yes, less protein in solution.

The same wort drained from the kettle , some chilled, some no chilled, wouldn't no chill have less break in it?

Yes, less precipitated cold break proteins. But more in solution.

Especially if it has weeks to sit around letting gravity drop more break out? edit: thats assuming you rack the clear wort into the fermenter.

Gravity in of itself, will not precipitate proteins (atleast, gravity that's available to the home brewer -- if you have a centrifuge that might be another story). So more protein will stay in solution, so even if you rack the "clear" wort into the fermenter, it'll carry over into the fermenter in the solution.

When quick chilling through a plate chiller straight into fermenter, does that not include a lot of cold break in it as well?

Yep, as chunky precipitated protein. I whirlpool so a lot of that chunky protein doesn't pass through.

Genuine questions

Yep, good ones too. Basically, the protein getting into cube or fermenter isn't the question. Its the form the protein takes, either as a precipitated solid form or an aqueous one. The former is easier to separate out..

As I said, I don't really think either will substantially make a difference for certain types of beers (actually, nearly all the styles of beer that I hold near and dear).. but it will for others. Perhaps MHB's assertion for Pilsners rings true, at least to a small extent, here.

I'm keen to test this scientifically.. and I will this weekend. But I'll have to qualify my results because if I only no-chill 1L then it will cool substantially quicker than a whole cube would.

 

[black_labb]

There is a theory that chilling things quickly will precipitate proteins from the hot or cold break that chilling it slowly doesn't.

I don't know wether it is real or not, but chilling the wort with an immersion chiller would theoretically leave it in the kettle. chilling via plate chillers or in a cube would be putting it into the fermentor. I don't see immersion chiller users claiming that plate chillers make inferior beer because of that. I'm not going to comment the accuracy of the theory but I think it;s

One rushed brewday I ran the whole lot of the wort into the cube barely having turned off the heat. I've been doing it ever since. The trub settles out in the cube and leaves you with clear wort by the time you pitch. I will be doing a whirlpool for a few hoppy brews I'll be doing but that's mainly so the wort goes in at less than 97*C to get more hop aroma and flavour.

I'm not too worried about beer clarity past a certain level, but any lack of clarity I've had on some beers is from processes post ferment such as bottling without giving the beer time and/or cold temperatures to clear. I can get my beers as clear as I could want if I just gave it some time in the fridge.


edit: beaten to it

 

[mje1980]

I recently did a few koelsh' in my cubes. Ended up bloody clear, and very tasty!

 

[stux]

People who chill and have never done a no-chill might not believe how crystal clear the wort is after a few days.

*requiring* a fast chill to have a cold break seems like baloney to me

Any "non-precipitated proteins" which make it into the cube drop to the bottom over a couple of days and you end up with all the break nicely piled on the bottom of the jerry.


Then you just pour off (ie decant) super clear wort into your fermenter until the stream runs a little cloudy... and stop.

If you want clear wort into your fermenter.

 

[manticle]

I brew on top of my cold break as I ferment straight in the cube. While there may be some observed or measured issues with this on a molecular level, on a taste level, real level, actual level, whatever level of relevance you want to use to a homebrewer and the consumption of their beer, there is no significant issue I can point to and say "cold break is responsible for that". I challenge anyone else to do so too.

I do separate my wort from the hot break and trub though.

The point about plate chillers made above to me is a good one - as far as I understand all cold break is transferred to fermenting vessel so its not uncommon for some chillers to be fermenting with CB.

I don't drink my beer cold enough for chill haze to be an issue but my understanding is that long lagering times will reduce chill haze (as will putting tiny pieces of plastic in it but I prefer not to))