This xBmt was completed by a member of The Brü Club as a part of The Brü Club xBmt Series in collaboration with Brülosophy. While members who choose to participate in this series generally take inspiration from Brülosophy, the bulk of design, writing, and editing is handled by members unless otherwise specified. Articles featured on Brulosophy.com are selected by The Brü Club leadership prior to being submitted for publication. Visit The Brü Club website for more information on this series.

Author: Matt Skillstad

Rapid chilling of wort after the boil is said to halt the isomerization of alpha acids and lock in volatile hop aromatics while also encouraging the coagulation and precipitation of protein. In addition to the impact on bitterness and clarity, failing to chill wort quickly is purportedly associated with increased risk of DMS formation and contamination. Perhaps the biggest drawback to rapid chilling is that it requires a good amount of water that ends up going to waste, which is a problem for brewers in drought-stricken regions.

One such place is Australia where rather strict water conservation policies are in place, thus limiting a brewer’s ability to chill their wort using standard methods. In order to keep the beer flowing, some clever Aussie homebrewers devised an approach whereby hot wort was racked to a food-grade HDPE plastic “cube” before being sealed and stowed away until it was cool enough to proceed with fermentation. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, this “no-chill” method reportedly led to good beer with none of the feared off-flavors.

In a prior Brülosophy xBmt, participants were able to reliably tell apart a Helles chilled rapidly from one where the wort was cooled using the no-chill method, which made me wonder how things would pan out in a hoppier style. Early on in my brewing, I adopted the no-chill method because, for one, I didn’t want to invest in an expensive chiller, and I also wanted to decrease the amount of time spent brewing. Overall, I was quite happy with this method and even won some medals with beer brewed using it. However, I was never quite satisfied with how my hop-forward beers turned out, they always seemed lacking to me. Having acquired a high quality immersion chiller, I decided to see for myself what effect the no-chill method has on a hoppy IPA.

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between an IPA made using the no-chill method and one where the wort was chilled rapidly with an immersion chiller.

| METHODS |

For this xBmt, I wanted to go with a recipe that called for a decent late kettle hop addition and looked to Brewing Classic Styles for guidance. I ended up designing a recipe inspired by Hoppiness Is An IPA but ditched the dry hop charge so as not to mask any differences caused by the chilling method.

Rack It Off & Chill

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5.5 gal 60 min 50.1 IBUs 6.8 SRM 1.065 1.012 7.0 % Actuals 1.065 1.01 7.3 % Fermentables Name Amount % Pale Malt (2 Row), Rahr 11.687 lbs 86.18 Munich I (Weyermann) 1.375 lbs 10.14 Caramel/Crystal Malt - 40L 8 oz 3.69 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Centennial 26 g 45 min Boil Pellet 11.1 Centennial 26 g 10 min Boil Pellet 11.1 Simcoe 26 g 5 min Boil Pellet 13.9 Amarillo 26 g 0 min Boil Pellet 8.5 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature Safale American (US-05) DCL/Fermentis 77% 59°F - 75°F Download Download this recipe's BeerXML file

I started my brew day by collecting the entire volume of water, adjusting it to my desired profile, then getting it on the burner. While the water was heating up, I milled the grain directly into my Brew Bag.

When the water reached strike temperature, I added the grains and stirred before putting the lid in place.

At the end of the 60 minute mash, I hoisted the grain bag above the kettle and allowed it to drain as I began heating the sweet wort.

At this point, I measured out the kettle hop additions.

Following a 45 minute boil, I cut the heat, added the flameout hop addition, then let it settle for about 1 minute. While the no-chill method typically involves sealing hot wort in a plastic container, I opted to use a stainless steel fermentation vessel seeing as it can withstand such warm temperatures. With the hop stand complete, I racked off half of the wort.

I then proceeded to rapidly chill the remaining wort with my very efficient IC, which given my cool winter groundwater temperature was 59°F/16°C. Next, the wort was transferred to its own stainless fermenter.

A refractometer reading showed the wort was right at my target OG.

Whereas the no-chill wort was left overnight in my very cool garage, the rapidly chilled wort was placed in my fermentation chamber controlled to 64°F/18°C and hit with a pack of Safale US-05. Approximately 19 hours later, the no-chill wort was sitting at 59°F/15°C, so I place it next to the other batch in my chamber and pitched the yeast. I noticed signs of fermentation in both batches about 24 hours after pitching the yeast, at which point I connected blow off tubes from either fermenter to sanitized kegs to naturally purge them with CO2.

After 2 weeks of fermentation, activity in both batches was absent so I attached a BrüLoonLock to each and began to cold crash. A couple days later, I took hydrometer measurements showing both beers reached the same FG.

I then racked the beers into the naturally purged kegs.

The filled kegs were placed in my kegerator, burst carbonated, and left to condition for a few weeks before I began serving them to tasters.

| RESULTS |

Data collection for this xBmt was done at the Divots Big Chill Beer & Cheese Festival where a whopping 53 people of varying levels of experience lent their palates to the cause. Each participant was served 2 samples of the no-chill and 1 sample of the beer chilled rapidly with an immersion chiller in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the unique sample. While 24 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to accurately identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, a total of 26 did (p=0.013), indicating participants in this xBmt were able to reliably distinguish an IPA where the wort was chilled using the no-chill method from one where an immersion chiller was used to rapidly cool the wort.

The 26 participants who made the accurate selection on the triangle test were asked to select the beer they preferred, still blind to the variable. In the end, 9 tasters reported preferring the no-chill beer while 17 liked the rapidly chilled beer more.

My Impressions: I attempted 5 triangle tests and got it correct 3 times. These beers smelled and tasted exactly the same to me, but I perceived a bit more bitterness in the no-chill version. Both beers were good and I found myself being equally likely to pull a pint of either one.

| DISCUSSION |

While the no-chill method has many proponents who have reported good results when used on a variety of beer styles, I was never quite satisfied with the hop-forward beers I’d brewed using this technique. Was there really a difference, or was bias possibly at play? The fact participants in this xBmt were able to reliably tell apart a no-chill IPA from one where the wort was chilled rapidly suggests the method may have a perceptible impact.

While the results of this xBmt are significant, they provide little information about what exactly made the beers distinct. The no-chill beer was observably more hazy and described by a number participants as being more bitter. This may very well be due to ongoing isomerization occurring from the hops that remained in the hot wort, and if so, could possibly be accounted for by adjusting hopping rates. In fact, it’s commonly said that hot-side hop additions should be made 20 minutes later than usual when using the no-chill method, which seems like something worth exploring.

Now that I’ve completed this xBmt, and the results align with Brülosophy’s first iteration, I’m left asking one final question– was the no-chill method responsible for my lackluster hoppy beers? Truth be told, I’m pretty certain it wasn’t. The no-chill beer from this xBmt tasted so similar to the rapidly chilled version that I struggled to tell them apart and was only able to do so based on differences in bitterness. It’s my personal opinion that the preference for the rapidly chilled version reflects the average beer drinker’ss preference for lower bitterness rather than some disparity in quality. In a pinch, I would definitely consider using the no-chill method, but for the majority of my brewing, rapid chilling with an immersion chiller is what I’ll be sticking to.

Matt Skillstad is a happy husband to a wonderful wife (who likes his beer!) and proud father of 5 children under 7 years old from Pierce, Nebraska. He has been brewing since 2011 and, in addition to The Brü Club, is a member of the Elkhorn Valley Society of Brewers. He enjoys experimenting with his brewing in an effort to make better beer in less time with less effort. When not brewing or hanging with his family, Matt enjoys bike riding and golfing (poorly).

If you have any thoughts about this xBmt, please do not hesitate to share in the comments section below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email



Like this: Like Loading...