Cheap (is possible) Pump

The forum for discussing all kinds of brewing paraphernalia.
McMullan

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by McMullan » Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:45 pm

My understanding is that no-chill brewing involves transferring hot wort (and a lot of suspended solids) to an FV (hopefully not plastic) and waiting a day or two for it to cool to pitching temperature. In parts of Australia it might be the only option. Your approach was different, Kev. But even here I'd have reservations. Boiling doesn't sterilise wort so it's best to pitch yeast as soon as. Also, at the end of brew day I just want to finish and do something more interesting the next day. Probably brew another beer :roll: Even with home brewing it's nice to be as efficient as possible. What works for the individual, though, of course. I have to admit I do follow the method you describe for making starter wort, but I boil it again the following day after transferring off from the sediment. It's not as bright as my beer wort, but better than extract for starters.

User avatar
Kev888
So far gone I'm on the way back again!
Posts: 7701
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by Kev888 » Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:55 pm

Yes, the use of intermediary jerry can (or cube) is a bit more flexible, it seems quite a popular method in Aus. Apparently some people will store it for weeks sometimes, but I agree the risk is higher so normally used it within a few days.

The cube was roughly similar in effort to the cooling it replaces, but as you say left the FV stage to be done on a subsequent day. I found that helpful if the fermenter wasn't free when I was able to fit a brew-day in, but unhelpful if in a hurry to cool and get fermenting.

I wouldn't arbitrarily return to it, as like you I prefer chilling there and then in the kettle for a number of reasons. But if I was back in a situation without a cold water supply to hand then so be it, really.
Kev

User avatar
Jocky
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2738
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:50 pm
Location: Epsom, Surrey, UK

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by Jocky » Wed Dec 11, 2019 8:29 pm

I think you guys have the point that I’m coming from. Rapid chilling is beneficial but not a necessity to make beer.

So if that’s what the OP needs to do to be able to enjoy the hobby then I think they can find a way to make it work good enough for what they need.

I’d certainly suggest giving it a go as a £5 Jerry can is a reasonable gamble compared to buying an expensive water butt pump and chiller.
Ingredients: Water, Barley, Hops, Yeast, Seaweed, Blood, Sweat, The swim bladder of a sturgeon, My enemies tears, Scenes of mild peril, An otter's handbag and Riboflavin.

User avatar
vacant
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2167
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:39 pm

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by vacant » Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:22 pm

I've done quite a few no-chills, pitching the yeast into them when cooled. Not much head space so for an airlock I take a tube from the tap into a flask of water. All sits in my fermenting fridge set to about 18C.
I brew therefore I ... I .... forget

TheSumOfAllBeers
Lost in an Alcoholic Haze
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 11:21 am

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by TheSumOfAllBeers » Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:45 pm

Meatymc wrote: Previous posts and resulting advice that being unable to rapid chill is the likely root cause

...

Would be more than happy if someone can counter what I've already been told
I have made 2 lagers both with no chill.

Both were good beers that finished far too quickly, widely enjoyed by brewers and macro drinkers.

You have 2 problems to look out for when making no chill lagers: DMS / DMS precursor production in the cube while the wort is hot, and chill haze.

In my case , neither lager had any detectable DMS I just used high quality malt: weyerman bo pils and a 90 min boil. Chill haze you can fix with finings post fermentation.

User avatar
PhilB
Piss Artist
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:32 am
Location: South Cheshire

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by PhilB » Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:41 am

Hi McMullan/Jocky
McMullan wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:11 pm
Jocky wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:37 am
McMullan wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:53 am
It was established by brewing scientists - over 80 years ago - that rapidly chilling boiled wort promotes a better fermentation ...
If you're going to invoke the name of science then you need to be a bit more definite. In this case, what did they define as 'rapid'? ...
'Rapid' as in relative to slowly cooled worts, using apparatus not unlike ICs and PCs. The quicker the better too. It promotes a better cold break - produces clearer worts ...
... and if you're going to invoke science, then you also need to recognise ALL of the science, not just the bits that suit your argument :roll: ... as I've explained previously on here (over there (link)) ...
PhilB wrote: ... dropping the temperature of your wort from 80C to pitching temp isn't the whole picture ... Hough, et al. found that the greater influence on cold break production was the temperature that the wort was cooled to ... as reported by Briggs in Brewing Science and Practice, Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2004 ...
Image
... so, you can use your immersion or counter flow chiller to chill your wort to (only) pitching temp of 20C or so, as fast you can, if you want ... but dropping your wort into a no-chill cube and allowing it to cool for 24 hrs at ambient temps, then putting your cube into your brewfridge to chill below 5C for a few days (or leaving it in the shed at ambient temperature, if ambient is cold enough), before transferring the wort to your FV, raising it to pitching temps and pitching CAN produce a "better" wort :?
Cheers, PhilB

McMullan

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by McMullan » Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:51 am

Some people survive without being vaccinated. That doesn't disprove the benefits of vaccination. I'll stick to the 'moral high ground' and embrace progress. It works for me, especially in terms of fermentation performance and going from grain to glass. Brewing is a process. It's the brewer's choice which procedures he adopts. I don't recommend prescribing practices based on little, unconfirmed evidence. Certainly not based on the limitations of a single publication and rumours. Trust me, I'm a scientist. The benefits of rapidly chilling boiled wort were debated vigorously and confirmed independently years ago. That won't stop contrarians seeking attention, though.

User avatar
Kev888
So far gone I'm on the way back again!
Posts: 7701
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by Kev888 » Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:30 pm

PhilB wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:41 am
..so, you can use your immersion or counter flow chiller to chill your wort to (only) pitching temp of 20C or so, as fast you can, if you want ... but dropping your wort into a no-chill cube and allowing it to cool for 24 hrs at ambient temps, then putting your cube into your brewfridge to chill below 5C for a few days (or leaving it in the shed at ambient temperature, if ambient is cold enough), before transferring the wort to your FV, raising it to pitching temps and pitching CAN produce a "better" wort :?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but I wonder if you may be confusing arguments here. Rapid cooling and chilling to low temperatures are different things which do not negate each other - they would ideally be combined to get the best of both worlds (as indeed they often are). Doing just one will not be somehow better, it would simply be an omission of the other and less ideal in terms of best results.

Of course, an individual brewer may decide that doing just one or the other is adequate for them, and so better in the sense of easier, which is completely fine. But to consider them as competing substitutes for each other is somewhat missing the point to my way of thinking. Though I appreciate sometimes required by limitations in facilities.

Though the discussions around the net might be quite different if no-chill still meant not chilling the wort. It seems these days to permit forced cooling in fridges or water/ice baths which leads to all sorts of confusion and misleading arguments. Unless one lives in a cold enough climate, I'd suggest that additional cooling of the wort (whether called so or not) between the boil and pitching the yeast can usually offer benefits, it may be less important exactly how or when.
Kev

User avatar
PhilB
Piss Artist
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:32 am
Location: South Cheshire

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by PhilB » Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:48 pm

Hi Kev,
Not confusing, just pointing out that speed of reducing temperature is not the only factor in assessing the amount of cold-break produced, temperature reduced to (and, it turns out, amount of time held at that temperature) being other factors ... and how with three "variables to play with" chilling quickly isn't always "best" ... I've put "best" in quotes like that because clarity of wort, of course, is only one measure of what constitutes good in a wort ... but it was McMullen who asserted that, when he said :? ...
McMullan wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:11 pm
The quicker the better too. It promotes a better cold break - produces clearer worts, which attenuate better and produce more yeast. Mainly due to something I know you are familiar with, Jocky. Nucleation sites. Particles in turbid worts form CO2 nucleation sites in fermenting worts. As they rise, yeast in the sediment and in suspension end up on top of the wort, producing a ridiculous yeast head. We want them in the wort, fermenting sugars, right? It's important not to stand back and admire it proudly, let alone post a pic of it on the internet. What often appears to be vigorously fermenting wort is not entirely due to fermentation but a physical process that actually slows fermentation, ironically.
To be clear, I'm not saying that no-chilling "will" produce clearer worts, and if you have the ability to chill your wort (with whatever chiller you have) down to cold temperatures, really quickly then you probably will have the ability to produce really clear worts ... but if you find that by no-chilling, you can introduce further cooling into the procedure, for longer, then that CAN (and that is in capitals there , as it was in my previous post, because it's not an always will, just a "might", depending on how much cooler you can chill by and for how much longer) produce clearer wort :?

Hi McMullen,
I see rather than own up to not quite representing the whole picture, you've now taken the other tack that no-chill "nay-sayers" always take and decided to assert that a recently boiled wort, transferred to a no-chill container (still hot) and stored there (sealed) until it is transferred to an FV will contain more bacteria than a similarly recently boiled wort chilled in the boiler with an IC and transferred; or a recently boiled wort chilled and transferred using a CFC ... got any references to the scientific evidence for that? Or are you just going to rely on ...
McMullan wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:51 am
Trust me, I'm a scientist.
Cheers, PhilB

User avatar
Kev888
So far gone I'm on the way back again!
Posts: 7701
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by Kev888 » Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:45 pm

Ah yes, as I suspected the terminology was probably being unhelpful. So yes, chilling wort down below pitching temperature for some time does help in comparison with not chilling the wort at any stage. Whether only doing that gives better or worse results than only rapid cooling down from hot I wouldn't like to call, both do help to a useful degree; if aiming for best results then one would want to do both in any case.

As for nasties, well neither the boiling wort nor the subsequent vessel will be guaranteed devoid of life, I don't think that is disputed. The longer they're left without competition and with all those sugary resources available then the more opportunity for small numbers to multiply, again not very contentious. More vessels and longer times simply make things less safe 'whichever' method is involved.

Which isn't the same as saying it is unacceptably risky or can't be done; the cube method recognises some of this and does its best to minimise the additional risks so the results are generally acceptable to people in practice. I wouldn't like to argue it is 'as' safe as transferring directly to the FV, and chilling plus pitching in short order, but the difference appears not to cause problems for most people who use the method properly. Not sure I'd be so keen to combine it with things like harvesting and re-using generation after generation of yeast though.
Kev

McMullan

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by McMullan » Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:10 pm

Yes, Phil, yeast ferment better in clearer worts. Although it’s true a little trub can be beneficial in some cases, in terms of providing nutrients for yeast, too much has a negative effect on fermentation, relative to its clearer counterpart.

’Trust me, I’m a scientist’ was me saying ‘I know how science works and I’ll criticise it when necessary - which is why I wouldn’t recommend prescribing practices based on the limitations of one study and, yeah, rumours circulating the internet.

Boiling doesn’t sterilise wort. I’ve spent enough time in biology labs - prepping sterile media - to know that. It’s not privileged knowledge and requires an autoclave. It’s not really publishable, though, is it?

Depending on the microbial community on the grains used, state of equipment used, the brewing environment, including the personal hygiene of the brewer, yes, there’s a higher probability you’ll have more contaminating bugs in no-chill worts. There’s a good reason why we should pitch yeast as soon as, rather than waiting for a day or two. Note that bacteria and other bugs still grow when chilled, albeit at a lower rate. However, their rate of growth is much higher than that of yeast - about 20 minutes vs a couple hours. Delaying fermentation risks contaminating bugs establishing and having an impact on the beer. Some people like that, of course. A healthy yeast population pitched as soon as has a better chance of out competing most things likely to contaminate wort. It’s why they produce ethanol. It’s common sense nowadays, I would have thought. I’m sure a good beer can be made with no chill, but how do you know it wouldn’t be even better chilled rapidly with an IC or CFC? All the valid evidence supports rapid cooling, regardless of opinions.

User avatar
PhilB
Piss Artist
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:32 am
Location: South Cheshire

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by PhilB » Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:43 pm

Hi Kev
Kev888 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:45 pm
So yes, chilling wort down below pitching temperature for some time does help in comparison with not chilling the wort at any stage. Whether only doing that gives better or worse results than only rapid cooling down from hot I wouldn't like to call, both do help to a useful degree; if aiming for best results then one would want to do both in any case.
... indeed, but if you wanted to do both, you'd then be left with the problem of incorporating both steps into into your procedures ... and facing up to ALL the risks of infection that adding those extra steps and that extra time will increase :?
Kev888 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:45 pm
As for nasties, well neither the boiling wort nor the subsequent vessel will be guaranteed devoid of life, I don't think that is disputed. The longer they're left without competition and with all those sugary resources available then the more opportunity for small numbers to multiply, again not very contentious. More vessels and longer times simply make things less safe 'whichever' method is involved
... hmmm, the "nay-sayers" always choose to highlight the increased number of vessels, but neglect to recognise that removing the IC/CFC equipment from the procedure actually means that the number of pieces of kit to come into contact with the wort when no-chilling remains the same as when chilling ... so while I don't dispute your "more vessels, more risk" notion, I do dispute the "more vessels" when no-chilling than when chilling, anyway :?

As for the point about the risks of storing your wort in a pasteurised state for a longer time ... that's a general point about no-chill that we have to assume Meatymc (remember him? he's the OP for this thread) has weighed up and decided on ... but then considering the numbers of threads on forums where brews have become infected and the source has been traced back to crud on/in a chiller, perhaps we just have to recognise that brewing comes with risks :?

Cheers, PhilB

User avatar
PhilB
Piss Artist
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:32 am
Location: South Cheshire

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by PhilB » Wed Dec 18, 2019 12:08 am

Hi McMullan
McMullan wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:10 pm
All the valid evidence supports rapid cooling, regardless of opinions.
... except it doesn't [-X ... as we've (collectively) ascertained, the available scientific evidence shows how ... bacterial infection is bad in beer production, and storing wort longer increases the risks from and probably the amount of bacterial infection ... but then fermenting clearer worts is good for fermentation and produces better beer ... and, while chilling wort from one temperature to another temperature more quickly will produce clearer wort than chilling it slowly, cooling wort to lower temperatures and holding it there longer can produce clearer wort again :?

But then, all those scientific investigations looked at "proving" the impacts of those factors in isolation and there are no investigation on how they interact and on which outweigh each other, so there is no scientific evidence to support either that ... my claim that the effect of improved fermentation from improved wort clarity from a long cooled, no-chilled wort will outweigh the negatives of the marginal (IMHO) increased bacteria in that no-chilled wort ... or for your claim that the reduced bacterial infection of a rapidly chilled and pitched wort will make (inherently) better beer than a wort with more bacteria but less suspended cold break :? ... that's just opinion, on both our parts, but I'm not the one trying to claim the weight of scientific evidence behind me when it doesn't actually back up my opinion and I have to resort to statements of ...
McMullan wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:10 pm
It’s common sense nowadays, I would have thought.
Cheers, PhilB

User avatar
Kev888
So far gone I'm on the way back again!
Posts: 7701
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by Kev888 » Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:27 am

PhilB wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:43 pm
Hi Kev
Kev888 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:45 pm
So yes, chilling wort down below pitching temperature for some time does help in comparison with not chilling the wort at any stage. Whether only doing that gives better or worse results than only rapid cooling down from hot I wouldn't like to call, both do help to a useful degree; if aiming for best results then one would want to do both in any case.
... indeed, but if you wanted to do both, you'd then be left with the problem of incorporating both steps into into your procedures ... and facing up to ALL the risks of infection that adding those extra steps and that extra time will increase :?
Kev888 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:45 pm
As for nasties, well neither the boiling wort nor the subsequent vessel will be guaranteed devoid of life, I don't think that is disputed. The longer they're left without competition and with all those sugary resources available then the more opportunity for small numbers to multiply, again not very contentious. More vessels and longer times simply make things less safe 'whichever' method is involved
... hmmm, the "nay-sayers" always choose to highlight the increased number of vessels, but neglect to recognise that removing the IC/CFC equipment from the procedure actually means that the number of pieces of kit to come into contact with the wort when no-chilling remains the same as when chilling ... so while I don't dispute your "more vessels, more risk" notion, I do dispute the "more vessels" when no-chilling than when chilling, anyway :?

As for the point about the risks of storing your wort in a pasteurised state for a longer time ... that's a general point about no-chill that we have to assume Meatymc (remember him? he's the OP for this thread) has weighed up and decided on ... but then considering the numbers of threads on forums where brews have become infected and the source has been traced back to crud on/in a chiller, perhaps we just have to recognise that brewing comes with risks :?

Cheers, PhilB
With limited time and facilities one must do what one can of course, few of us are strangers to that and it is very real. But such things aside, it is quite possible to do a thorough job without introducing extra risks from the wort's perspective. For example, wort can be transferred directly to a (good) temperature controlled conical FV to chill both rapidly and to a low temperature, quickly in one vessel, and then dump the settled sediment; very little extra of anything needed.

Of course most times people would choose to use dedicated wort coolers and more modest FV control. But if they are getting infection from coolers then they're doing things badly. A properly clean IC will not increase risk significantly when added to the kettle and boiled for 20mins, and even a horribly enclosed plate chiller can be autoclaved to better sterility than boiling wort. So again, problems are more about the implementation than the method itself.

To be clear, I am not a nay-sayer for no-chilling, though I much prefer the not-no-chilling version that involves a fridge to chill the cube. I have used it before and would do again if needed, it has some enormous benefits in the right situations and the homebrewing arsenal would be poorer without it. But I cannot be completely evangelical about it either; like everything it has pros and cons and IMO it is also slightly less than the best one can reasonably do 'if' circumstances and inclination permit.
Kev

McMullan

Re: Cheap (is possible) Pump

Post by McMullan » Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:51 am

Phil, you must be one of a tiny minority of brewers - on the fringe - who does no chill out of choice. Your process isn’t the optimal way of achieving clearer wort and delaying fermentation introduces unnecessary risks.

There’s sufficient (and accessible) scientific evidence here.

But I doubt it’s going to satisfy you, because you know better, right? Cherry picking a graph to argue against the science wasn’t very smart. It exposed a serious bias. As a scientist, I reject ‘post-truth’ rules. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Note that scientists don’t design experiments to prove anything. They design experiments to disprove. That’s how the scientific method works. And since the benefits of rapid chilling of wort haven’t been rejected, scientifically, the process is generally accepted as best practice.

Good luck with your brewing.

Post Reply