No Chill vs Delayed yeast pitch
- Thread starter Ninoid
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
bucketnative
Well-Known Member
Why do you say that no chill is a "bad one"? I know there are a lot of users here who prefer the no chill method for it's frugality and lack of urgency. That experiment makes no mention of no chill.
No chill is significantly different than the yeast hold, because it involves higher temperatures. There are reactions that are occurring faster at those elevated temps, like oxidation (potentially) and the further isomerization of hop AAs. The impact of which can be planned for and minimized.
No chill is significantly different than the yeast hold, because it involves higher temperatures. There are reactions that are occurring faster at those elevated temps, like oxidation (potentially) and the further isomerization of hop AAs. The impact of which can be planned for and minimized.
OP
OP
Ninoid
Well-Known Member
I don't think that No Chill is bad because I always use No Chill in sealed fermenter and not have any bad consequences.
Oxidation? - Yeast pitched after chill need oxygen (if it is elevated)
Isomerization? - Use less hop or delayed hopping schedule
I just wonder why does No Chill feel inferior to quick cooling?
Oxidation? - Yeast pitched after chill need oxygen (if it is elevated)
Isomerization? - Use less hop or delayed hopping schedule
I just wonder why does No Chill feel inferior to quick cooling?
SoCal-Doug
Well-Known Member
If the wort stays sterile. You can pitch hours or days later if you like.
Chilling the wort after the boil has to do with binding proteins and other schmutz for clarity and trub separation, also called a "cold break". If you don't care about a little haze, you can let the wort cool on its own. As long as it stays sterile, its fine.
Chilling also speeds up getting the wort into the fermenter, thereby enabling you to pitch sooner and get the wort safely sealed in the fermenter with less time that would be risky for picking up wild yeast or bacteria.
Side note: Grains are all different and are effected by cold break differently. Clarity and cold break success is also very much dependent on the grains used and the pH during the boil and chilling.
Prior to pitching, it's always good to oxygenate or give the wort a good shake up. Yeast need this. So of the wort has been sitting for an extended period, (re)oxygenate it before pitching.
Chilling the wort after the boil has to do with binding proteins and other schmutz for clarity and trub separation, also called a "cold break". If you don't care about a little haze, you can let the wort cool on its own. As long as it stays sterile, its fine.
Chilling also speeds up getting the wort into the fermenter, thereby enabling you to pitch sooner and get the wort safely sealed in the fermenter with less time that would be risky for picking up wild yeast or bacteria.
Side note: Grains are all different and are effected by cold break differently. Clarity and cold break success is also very much dependent on the grains used and the pH during the boil and chilling.
Prior to pitching, it's always good to oxygenate or give the wort a good shake up. Yeast need this. So of the wort has been sitting for an extended period, (re)oxygenate it before pitching.
Last edited:
Hard to tell RE the Exbeeriment... That is a bit different from no chill, but somewhat similar. There is some active temp control going on vs sealing it up and letting is cool.
I am a committed no chill brewer. I brew and package the hot wort in a plastic cubes I got from ULINE. Works great. I think no chill has the advantage of zero ****ing chance of infection. Its pasteurized and sealed. You open it when its ready to get hit with yeast. The Exbeeriment lets it settle at the speed the fridge works.
I suspect is is like any other system of homebrewing, once you tune it it, it works. I make a solid Helles and IPA with no chill. DMS and Isomerization boogieman be dammed. I don't doubt that the system described by the Exberriment will work great too once you tune it in.
I find it really hard to mess up beer as long as you have solid sanitary practices. Its mostly about managing fermentation and good yeast management practices as far as I can tell. There is a lot of lore in home brewing. Find your system and mess with it.
I am a committed no chill brewer. I brew and package the hot wort in a plastic cubes I got from ULINE. Works great. I think no chill has the advantage of zero ****ing chance of infection. Its pasteurized and sealed. You open it when its ready to get hit with yeast. The Exbeeriment lets it settle at the speed the fridge works.
I suspect is is like any other system of homebrewing, once you tune it it, it works. I make a solid Helles and IPA with no chill. DMS and Isomerization boogieman be dammed. I don't doubt that the system described by the Exberriment will work great too once you tune it in.
I find it really hard to mess up beer as long as you have solid sanitary practices. Its mostly about managing fermentation and good yeast management practices as far as I can tell. There is a lot of lore in home brewing. Find your system and mess with it.
SoCal-Doug
Well-Known Member
Not everyone subscribes to DMS (dimethyl sulfide) and [not]chilling being related. SMM (s-methylmethionine) is in malted grain. Some malts have very little, some have a lot. SMM breaks down and turns into DMS when grain or your wort gets heated above 140F. During the boil, DMS (a sulfur compound) is very volatile and departs, as long as you boil long enough. Side note: Roasted and crystal malts have no SMM because the kilning process does the breakdown and drives off the DMS.
Some people think that SMM continues to generate DMS post boil, anytime the wort is above 140F. I can't buy into this. There's only so much SMM to break down. It doesn't magically create more. If you did a no boil thing, then absolutely there could be DMS present just from the mashing temps breaking down the SMM in the malt.
I've done 80% and 90% pilsner based beers (pilsner malt is loaded with SMM, probably the worst offender) and have let the wort cool in "cubes" overnight, to pitch the following day. Never once have I sensed any DMS post boil, and I am personally very sensitive to it. During the boil however, they did have a God awful DMS cabbage/corn stink. Fair disclosure: Typically I do chill the wort because it was a long day and I want to get the stuff pitched, everything cleaned up and call it done.
Some people think that SMM continues to generate DMS post boil, anytime the wort is above 140F. I can't buy into this. There's only so much SMM to break down. It doesn't magically create more. If you did a no boil thing, then absolutely there could be DMS present just from the mashing temps breaking down the SMM in the malt.
I've done 80% and 90% pilsner based beers (pilsner malt is loaded with SMM, probably the worst offender) and have let the wort cool in "cubes" overnight, to pitch the following day. Never once have I sensed any DMS post boil, and I am personally very sensitive to it. During the boil however, they did have a God awful DMS cabbage/corn stink. Fair disclosure: Typically I do chill the wort because it was a long day and I want to get the stuff pitched, everything cleaned up and call it done.
Last edited:
If you subscribe to the Brülosophy (flawed) premise that a single experiment lets you draw the broadest and most general conclusions then by any means, do wait as long as you wish before pitching. I guarantee that someday you'll have a lambic beer on your hands or at least some unpleasant off-flavors that, while they may not kill you or make you sick, might make your beer somewhat unpleasant to drink.
Boiled wort is anything but sterile, you don't need external contamination for something bad to start happening to it. But it's in the nature of microbiology that you might get different results even under the same conditions, so it's possible that you won't have any noticeable effects nine times out of ten and then the tenth one is the one where you really wish you had done things differently.
Huh? Boiled wort isn't sterile??? Ok I'm not a scientist and maybe there are some superbugs that can survive an hour at 212f but it seems unlikely in the homebrew context that any contamination would come from the boiled wort. More likely culprit for any infections is whatever you transfer it into, or your transfer gear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endospore
"Endospores can survive without nutrients. They are resistant to ultraviolet radiation, desiccation, high temperature, extreme freezing and chemical disinfectants."
Most of the bugs that can thrive in beer aren't capable of producing spores and are thus killed with boiling. A lot of the bugs that can thrive in unfermented wort can sporulate and their spores survive simple boiling at atmospheric pressures.
"Endospores can survive without nutrients. They are resistant to ultraviolet radiation, desiccation, high temperature, extreme freezing and chemical disinfectants."
Most of the bugs that can thrive in beer aren't capable of producing spores and are thus killed with boiling. A lot of the bugs that can thrive in unfermented wort can sporulate and their spores survive simple boiling at atmospheric pressures.
OP
OP
Ninoid
Well-Known Member
... and survive fast chilling.
You're completely missing the point here. It's not how fast you chill, but how soon you pitch the yeast that will prevent unwanted nasties from fully developing. But of course if it takes you 40 hours to chill you cannot pitch yeast any sooner than that, so you'll have a greater risk of an infection developing compared to fast chilling where you could pitch yeast as soon as 30 minutes after flame-out.
I cannot stress the word risk strongly enough. As with any instance where a risk has to be assessed, doing so with a single iteration of an experiment is just ludicrous and completely worthless.
More like "Everyone knows that uncooked poultry can be deadly (salmonellosis) but I don't care and will keep eating it raw."
Well, to each their own, but to claim that it is safe when it actually isn't and to encourage others to follow suit is just irresponsible. Just for clarification, this is directed at Brülosophy, whose work I already despise for all sorts of reasons.
Well, to each their own, but to claim that it is safe when it actually isn't and to encourage others to follow suit is just irresponsible. Just for clarification, this is directed at Brülosophy, whose work I already despise for all sorts of reasons.
brewbama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,737
- Reaction score
- 2,499
The term ‘safe’ is a risk-based concept. Steps taken to be ‘Safe’ does not eliminate risk. It simply mitigates it to an acceptable level.
While I agree it would be more ‘safe’ to pitch as soon as possible thru rapid cooling, it is relatively un-risky (aka ‘safe’) if wort is chilled as much as possible, transferred to a properly cleaned and sanitized fermenter, covered (even sealed), set in a closed fermentation container and allowed to cool several hours before pitching yeast (Pitching yeast at high krausen will shorten lag time).
While making beer is not nearly the horror story some make it out to be, the biggest ‘risk’ of waiting to pitch is probably not spores, but simply oxidation. You can test this by pouring a glass of newly chilled wort and setting it on the counter. It shows signs of oxidation far faster than growing microbes.
While I agree it would be more ‘safe’ to pitch as soon as possible thru rapid cooling, it is relatively un-risky (aka ‘safe’) if wort is chilled as much as possible, transferred to a properly cleaned and sanitized fermenter, covered (even sealed), set in a closed fermentation container and allowed to cool several hours before pitching yeast (Pitching yeast at high krausen will shorten lag time).
While making beer is not nearly the horror story some make it out to be, the biggest ‘risk’ of waiting to pitch is probably not spores, but simply oxidation. You can test this by pouring a glass of newly chilled wort and setting it on the counter. It shows signs of oxidation far faster than growing microbes.
Last edited:
There are several factors contributing to low risk of dangerous infections being prior heat treatment and hops.
I think the main issue that we might face is that certain compounds which would drop out with the cold break are remaining and those compounds might influence in particular intensity of hop flavour and aroma and the longevity of those flavors and aromas.
There was a recent thread about clear wort vs unclear wort and those points have been discussed there in depth. I'm on my mobile and cannot look it up, but you might find it with a search.
I think the main issue that we might face is that certain compounds which would drop out with the cold break are remaining and those compounds might influence in particular intensity of hop flavour and aroma and the longevity of those flavors and aromas.
There was a recent thread about clear wort vs unclear wort and those points have been discussed there in depth. I'm on my mobile and cannot look it up, but you might find it with a search.
OP
OP
Ninoid
Well-Known Member
With No Chill I only had problems twice when I used a fermenter that was blowing the air on the lid. Those two beers are turn bad, and I do not use that fermenter anymore and not have problem.
If use right sealed container so the wort does not have any contact with the outside air will surely be no any problem with No Chill or delayed yeast pitch.
Oxygen is only truly problem.
If use right sealed container so the wort does not have any contact with the outside air will surely be no any problem with No Chill or delayed yeast pitch.
Oxygen is only truly problem.
