Cooling in a Buffalo boiler.

[Nigel1969]

I think you may have just hit the nail on the head. My mate always leaves his wort to cool naturally overnight, he's never had any problems.

[orlando]

There are a number of good reasons for crash cooling but picking just one should illustrate that yours is a risky strategy. Infection. At this time of the year there aren't as many organisms that love wort as much if not even more than yeast, but as the year progresses the risks rise very rapidly. By the time I get to the wort cooling stage I have already invested close to 4 hours of effort, I for one would not be tempted to put that in jeopardy, particularly as crash cooling with my plate chiller takes 10 minutes at the moment. I have read and inquired about the no - chill cube method and that appears to be a much more acceptable compromise to the one you are suggesting. Good luck, because that is what you are relying on.

[Capped]

There are a number of good reasons for crash cooling but picking just one should illustrate that yours is a risky strategy. Infection.

I did consider that - my solution was to place a saucer over the large orifice in the boiler lid a few minutes before knocking the power off. This sterilised the saucer ( lid ) and as the wort cooled, the contraction in volume above the wort sucked down on the saucer creating an airtight seal - thus ensuring sterility all along. The wort was not exposed to air for a nanosecond twixt switching off the boiler and dropping into the FV - unlike the messy faff of cooling which does expose the wort for uncomfortable periods. Sterility worries aside (which I'm sure I've got covered), I'm satisfied that crash-cooling does nothing for the clarity or quality of the resulting ale .

[orlando]

Then there is DMS to worry about too, crash cooling also gives you a cold break which helps in getting a stable beer with a chance of minimising or eliminating chill haze with superior head retention, less oxidation, which leads to better clarity and a better quality beer. But if your happy with the results......!

[Capped]

Then there is DMS to worry about too, crash cooling also gives you a cold break which helps in getting a stable beer with a chance of minimising or eliminating chill haze with superior head retention, less oxidation, which leads to better clarity and a better quality beer. But if your happy with the results......!

Ye I take your points there, and maybe I got really lucky - dunno! Gonna stick with it anyhow and all being well.... overnight cooling really suits my domestic arrangements better. Tell you what tho',and it goes against all conventional wisdom - the ale without crash-cooling withstands chill haze magnificently; 5 hours in the fridge no problem. I'm as confused as the next guy but there y'go...

[guypettigrew]

If it works for yoy Mr Capped, then keep doing it.

The really worrying bit about your post, though, is where you say your cooling coil is now in the bin. You do know loads of people would be willing to buy it off you, don't you?!

Guy

[Capped]

If it works for yoy Mr Capped, then keep doing it.

The really worrying bit about your post, though, is where you say your cooling coil is now in the bin. You do know loads of people would be willing to buy it off you, don't you?!

Guy

Too late - it's gone! Had a coupla jugs of said ale last night; four weeks in bottle,clear as clear can get,rock-solid head,no funny tastes etc. Leaving out the crash-cooling is as much a revelation as switching from fly to batch sparging. But ya know what they say - the consensus is always wrong- - even tho' it might not be obvious at the time

[jonnyt]

I agree capped:

Oxidation, bullsh1t as the yeast consume all the oxygen
DMS again bullsh1t as it simply doesn't happen with modern grains and a good boil
Infection risk small as bacteria cannot crawl so as long as you are sealed the risk is all but zero
Cold break still occurs without a crash cool
Breweries used to use cool ships without issue and ferment in open fermentors (some still do) so again draw your own conclusions.

[orlando]

Oxidation, bullsh1t as the yeast consume all the oxygen

Er, there hasn't been fermentation after the boil and before cooling so this is just confusing the discussion, which is about chill or no chill after the boil. Exposure of the wort above 27c causes it to bind chemically to various wort compunds. Over time, these compunds will break down, freeing atomic oxygen back into the beer, where it can oxidise the fatty acids and alcohols, producing off flavours and aromas like wet cardboard or sherry like.

DMS again bullsh1t as it simply doesn't happen with modern grains and a good boil

Quite a claim, but I don't know of any writer on beer that would make it. In fact in light lagers, in small quantities, it is a desirable characteristic. Certainly a vigourous boil does get rid of it but the precursor to DMS, S-methyl-methionine, (SMM) is itself produced during malting. If the wort is cooled slowly whilst exposed to the air DMS will dissolve back into it. DMS can also be caused by a bacterial infection, the no chill method using a cube to seal the wort from the air is the reason it works, it does however carry risks during transfer and of coure relies on the integrity of the seal.

Infection risk small as bacteria cannot crawl so as long as you are sealed the risk is all but zero

No it can't crawl but it rides on dust in the air and can fall into the wort if left exposed, the longer the more likely. This is why aseptic techniques use flames to carry air away from working areas and use hoods to stop bacteria dropping into an otherwise sterile environment. We obviously aren't working in sterile environments and can't hope to, but chilling the wort quickly after boiling dials down the risk of bacteria finding the "perfect" environment to allow them to get a hold.

Cold break still occurs without a crash cool

I have not seen this claim made before so can't comment on it. However,as cold break relies on temperature to thermally shock certain proteins into precipitating out of the wort I would of thought slow cooling won't affect them.

Breweries used to use cool ships without issue and ferment in open fermentors (some still do) so again draw your own conclusions.

I don't know what you mean by "cool ships" but fermenting in open fermentors was carried out with yeast adapted to that environment. With top fermenting yeast you of course have some protection to the wort but I don't know what this lends to the discussion on no-chill.

I am not trying to criticise the no-chill method as there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that it works well, particularly in Australia. I am questioning some of the things that have been said because they fly in the face of the evidence we have about best practice and the scientific evidence of modern brewing techniques. Some of the advice appears to me to rely on "luck" far more than it should, and it concerns me that others might try these techniques without fully understanding the risks. If it turns out that crash cooling is shown to be just "bullsh1t" as you claim, I will acknowledge it and change my practice, but not before I have seen some solid evidence to back it up.

[jonnyt]

Cool ships were large open shallow containers into which the boiled wort was poured and left to cool open to all elements. i.e. The wort was air cooled

Infection risk is small providing the lid is left on the boiler.

I get cold break in my no chill cubes so assume the same will apply if the wort is left in the boiler.

[Nigel1969]

Fascinating.. I'm going to try both the quick cool immersion method, then the natural cooling overnight in boiler practice. Using the exact same ingredients and mash, to the best I can. This could be a very interesting first couple of brews. Won't know any answers for a good few weeks yet, shame. Thanks for all your input guys, much appreciated. We all really never stop learning.

[guypettigrew]

I'll stay with fast cooling using my immersion coil.

For all the reasons Orlando says plus, why wouldn't I want to cool the wort the same day as it's made??

Make it, pitch the yeast, get it ready to mature as fast as possible. What's the benefit in leaving it for a day or more before pitching?

Guy

[orlando]

I'll stay with fast cooling using my immersion coil.

For all the reasons Orlando says plus, why wouldn't I want to cool the wort the same day as it's made??

Make it, pitch the yeast, get it ready to mature as fast as possible. What's the benefit in leaving it for a day or more before pitching?

Guy

Over here it would be time saved. In Australia, which is where I believe the practice is most prevalent, it is to save water. The point made about cool ships (thanks for the history lesson jonnyt ) is interesting but of course was because the modern methods we enjoy today weren't invented. What we don't know is how often the beer failed because of it or indeed whether it was just put up with. What we do know is the practice does not survive.

[crafty john]

I'll stay with fast cooling using my immersion coil.

For all the reasons Orlando says plus, why wouldn't I want to cool the wort the same day as it's made??

Make it, pitch the yeast, get it ready to mature as fast as possible. What's the benefit in leaving it for a day or more before pitching?

Guy

+1 the quicker the better in my view, although I have a mate who has been brewing AG for 18 months, he just leave his wort for about 30 minutes after flameout then runs off through a Viking hop filter into his fv and leaves it till the next morning. He has never had a bad brew yet.

[Capped]

+1 the quicker the better in my view, although I have a mate who has been brewing AG for 18 months, he just leave his wort for about 30 minutes after flameout then runs off through a Viking hop filter into his fv and leaves it till the next morning. He has never had a bad brew yet.

It seems that those folk who have actually gone ahead and skipped the crash cooling bit instead of blathering on about theory, have gotten consistently good results. I guess it all boils down to how short you want to make your brewday,domestic arrangements etc etc...